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

VAN

Vancouver Canucks

2-2-0

CAR

Carolina Hurricanes

2-1-1

Has last change

Thursday, October 8

7:00 PM ET · Lenovo Center

The short version

Before the game

The Hurricanes should pile up the shots

The Hurricanes have won two in a row. The Canucks are 2-2-0. Carolina has controlled the play far better over recent games and has home ice. Anything short of a win would be a surprise, though Vancouver can make a game of it if they get good looks.

The Hurricanes have won two in a row. The Canucks are 2-2-0. Carolina has controlled the play far better over recent games and has home ice. Vancouver could still pull it off if they get good looks, but they might need a miracle.

The Hurricanes shoot a lot, and the Canucks give up plenty.

Who to watch

  • Owns themNikolaj Ehlers has a point in five straight games against Vancouver.
  • MissingJake DeBrusk has missed the Canucks’ last two games.
  • Hot streakPaul Cotter has a point in every game this season.
  • Hot streakElias Pettersson has a point in every game this season.

  1. The Hurricanes should pile up the shots

    The Hurricanes shoot a lot, and the Canucks are one of the league’s worst at keeping shots down. Look for a big shot total.

    The call The Hurricanes take at least their usual 66.6 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Carolina 2nd for shot volume (66.6 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5) · Vancouver 30th for shot suppression

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

  2. The Canucks can’t afford to take penalties

    The Hurricanes’ power play is near the top of the league, and the Canucks’ kill is one of the league’s worst. Every trip to the box hurts the Canucks more than most.

    The call The Hurricanes’ power play creates at least their usual 8.0 expected goals per 60.

    Carolina 8th for power play (8.0 expected goals per 60) · Vancouver 28th for penalty kill

    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 Vancouver and Carolina play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Vancouver CanucksCarolina HurricanesLeague 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 Vancouver, 4 for Carolina. 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

    • Vancouver: 47.8 shot attempts per 6029th of 32

      Vancouver: 44.8 shot attempts per 6028th of 32

    • Carolina: 66.6 shot attempts per 602nd of 32

      Carolina: 63.6 shot attempts per 606th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

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

      Vancouver: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot10th of 32

    • Carolina: a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot14th of 32

      Carolina: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot11th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Vancouver: 10.7% of chances come from rebounds1st of 32

      Vancouver: 20.5% of chances come from rebounds3rd of 32

    • Carolina: 10.2% of chances come from rebounds16th of 32

      Carolina: 18.5% of chances come from rebounds4th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Vancouver: 6.9% of chances come right after a turnover25th of 32

      Vancouver: 19.1% of chances come right after a turnover1st of 32

    • Carolina: 7.7% of chances come right after a turnover7th of 32

      Carolina: 1.0% of chances come right after a turnover32nd of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Vancouver: 31.6% of shot attempts come from defensemen28th of 32

      Vancouver: 31.0% of shot attempts come from defensemen26th of 32

    • Carolina: 40.0% of shot attempts come from defensemen1st of 32

      Carolina: 42.9% of shot attempts come from defensemen1st of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Vancouver: 29.5% of shots come from within 20 feet24th of 32

      Vancouver: 27.8% of shots come from within 20 feet23rd of 32

    • Carolina: 28.9% of shots come from within 20 feet29th of 32

      Carolina: 30.4% of shots come from within 20 feet18th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Vancouver: 62.0 shot attempts allowed per 6030th of 32

      Vancouver: 64.0 shot attempts allowed per 6027th of 32

    • Carolina: 45.8 shot attempts allowed per 601st of 32

      Carolina: 43.1 shot attempts allowed per 603rd of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

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

      Vancouver: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot against17th of 32

    • Carolina: a 7.1% chance of scoring on the average shot against32nd of 32

      Carolina: an 8.1% chance of scoring on the average shot against32nd of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Vancouver: 0.37 defensive breakdowns per 603rd of 32

      Vancouver: 0.32 defensive breakdowns per 6014th of 32

    • Carolina: 0.43 defensive breakdowns per 6024th of 32

      Carolina: 0.35 defensive breakdowns per 6016th of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Vancouver: −0.05 goals saved above expected per 6032nd of 32

      Vancouver: −1.14 goals saved above expected per 6027th of 32

    • Carolina: +0.08 goals saved above expected per 6020th of 32

      Carolina: −0.36 goals saved above expected per 6022nd of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Vancouver: 80.9 shots per 60, both teams combined22nd of 32

      Vancouver: 74.3 shots per 60, both teams combined26th of 32

    • Carolina: 82.1 shots per 60, both teams combined16th of 32

      Carolina: 74.8 shots per 60, both teams combined25th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Vancouver: forecheck score 103 (100 is league average)15th of 32Vancouver: 23.7 forecheck plays recorded per 6010th of 32

      Vancouver: forecheck score 105 (100 is league average)15th of 32Vancouver: 26.8 forecheck plays recorded per 6012th of 32

    • Carolina: forecheck score 128 (100 is league average)2nd of 32Carolina: 29.8 forecheck plays recorded per 602nd of 32

      Carolina: forecheck score 138 (100 is league average)3rd of 32Carolina: 35.3 forecheck plays recorded per 602nd of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Vancouver: hit score 98 (100 is league average)19th of 32Vancouver: 26.7 hits recorded per 6017th of 32

      Vancouver: hit score 94 (100 is league average)19th of 32Vancouver: 29.3 hits recorded per 6018th of 32

    • Carolina: hit score 114 (100 is league average)4th of 32Carolina: 29.9 hits recorded per 605th of 32

      Carolina: hit score 127 (100 is league average)3rd of 32Carolina: 37.5 hits recorded per 604th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Vancouver: 43.5% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six6th of 32

      Vancouver: 44.1% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six7th of 32

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

      Carolina: 43.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six10th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Vancouver: 7.0 expected goals per 60 on the power play27th of 32

      Vancouver: 3.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play32nd of 32

    • Carolina: 8.0 expected goals per 60 on the power play8th of 32

      Carolina: 8.8 expected goals per 60 on the power play9th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Vancouver: 8.3 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded28th of 32

      Vancouver: 10.3 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded27th of 32

    • Carolina: 6.8 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded3rd of 32

      Carolina: 3.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded1st of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Vancouver: 1.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded12th of 32

      Vancouver: 1.5 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded7th of 32

    • Carolina: 1.5 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded1st of 32

      Carolina: 1.5 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded6th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Vancouver: 0.01 more penalties taken than drawn per 6018th of 32

      Vancouver: 0.74 more penalties taken than drawn per 6025th of 32

    • Carolina: 0.06 more penalties drawn than taken per 6011th of 32

      Carolina: 0.97 more penalties drawn than taken per 605th 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

Carolina 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.

Vancouver Canucks

Carolina Hurricanes

Worth knowing

  • Vancouver M. Sasson has started killing penalties: on the ice for 35% of the team’s shorthanded time in 4 games, up from 4% last season.
  • Vancouver P. Cotter has started killing penalties: on the ice for 28% of the team’s shorthanded time in 4 games, up from 0% last season.
  • Carolina L. Stankoven has started killing penalties: on the ice for 32% of the team’s shorthanded time in 4 games, up from 1% last season.

Who Carolina is likely to send against whom

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

Vancouver’s lines tonightL1 Boeser · Cotter · OhgrenL2 Pettersson · Karlsson · RossiL3 Bains · Lekkerimäki · SassonL4 Gallagher · O'Connor · Räty

Carolina forward lines against Vancouver forward lines

  • L1Hall · Stankoven · BlakeVAN L118%VAN L261%VAN L310%VAN L412%
  • L2Staal · Martinook · EhlersVAN L147%VAN L26%VAN L331%VAN L416%
  • L3Carrier · Aho · SvechnikovVAN L150%VAN L21%VAN L328%VAN L420%
  • L4Jankowski · Robinson · KotkaniemiVAN L111%VAN L220%VAN L359%VAN L49%

Carolina defense pairs against Vancouver forward lines

  • P1Walker · MillerVAN L144%VAN L219%VAN L318%VAN L419%
  • P2Slavin · ChatfieldVAN L127%VAN L221%VAN L329%VAN L423%
  • P3Reilly · GostisbehereVAN L18%VAN L242%VAN L331%VAN L419%

Based on 2 Carolina 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

Vancouver power play against Carolina penalty kill

  • Vancouver power play

    7.0 expected goals per 60 · 27th of 32

  • Carolina penalty kill

    6.8 expected goals allowed per 60 · 3rd of 32

Vancouver power play

PP164% of the time

Creates 5.7 expected goals per 60

  • F. HronekQuarterback
  • B. BoeserDistributor
  • E. PetterssonTrigger
  • M. Rossi
  • D. O'Connor

PP235% of the time

Creates 6.2 expected goals per 60

  • Z. BuiumQuarterback
  • T. WillanderPoint
  • L. KarlssonTrigger
  • J. Lekkerimäki
  • L. OhgrenNet-front

 

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

Carolina 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

K. Lankinen47 starts · 1371 shots, this season and last

−21.0 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.962 654 shots
Medium-danger save %
.859 503 shots
High-danger save %
.626 214 shots
Shots faced per 60
30
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.39
Quality starts
45%

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. LankinenL. MeriläinenB. BussiP. Kochetkov

B. Bussi42 starts · 980 shots, this season and last

+1.0 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.976 461 shots
Medium-danger save %
.874 350 shots
High-danger save %
.692 169 shots
Shots faced per 60
23.1
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.26
Quality starts
52%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • K. Lankinen: −21.0 goals saved above expected in 47 starts
    • B. Bussi: +1.0 goals saved above expected in 42 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • K. Lankinen: 30 shots faced per 60
    • B. Bussi: 23.1 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • K. Lankinen: the average shot he faces has a 7.5% chance of going in
    • B. Bussi: the average shot he faces has a 7.5% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • K. Lankinen: 0.39 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • B. Bussi: 0.26 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • K. Lankinen: a typical wait of 65 seconds between shots
    • B. Bussi: a typical wait of 84 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • K. Lankinen: a quality start 45% of the time
    • B. Bussi: a quality start 52% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

B. Bussi, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

K. Lankinen2 starts · 86 shots, this season

−5.4 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.889 36 shots
Medium-danger save %
.920 25 shots
High-danger save %
.600 25 shots
Shots faced per 60
35
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
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 chancesK. LankinenL. MeriläinenB. BussiP. Kochetkov

B. Bussi3 starts · 67 shots, this season

−2.3 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.933 30 shots
Medium-danger save %
.909 22 shots
High-danger save %
.600 15 shots
Shots faced per 60
21.7
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.32
Quality starts
33%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • K. Lankinen: −5.4 goals saved above expected in 2 starts
    • B. Bussi: −2.3 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • K. Lankinen: 35 shots faced per 60
    • B. Bussi: 21.7 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • K. Lankinen: the average shot he faces has a 9.1% chance of going in
    • B. Bussi: the average shot he faces has a 8.2% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • K. Lankinen: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • B. Bussi: 0.32 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • K. Lankinen: a typical wait of 54 seconds between shots
    • B. Bussi: a typical wait of 106 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • K. Lankinen: a quality start 50% of the time
    • B. Bussi: a quality start 33% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

B. Bussi, 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
VancouverCarolinaLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play51.5%56.1%
  • Power play23.6%20.2%
  • Rebound8.3%6%
  • Empty net3.9%6.5%
  • Off a turnover3.9%5.2%
  • Goalie pulled3.1%2.7%
  • Shorthanded3.5%2.7%
  • Off a faceoff win2.2%0.5%

229 Vancouver goals and 367 Carolina goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play52.6%45.5%
  • Power play15.8%36.4%
  • Rebound15.8%0%
  • Empty net5.3%9.1%
  • Off a turnover5.3%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded5.3%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%9.1%

19 Vancouver goals and 11 Carolina 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: Vancouver Canucks · Carolina Hurricanes