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

NYR

New York Rangers

4-1-0

WSH

Washington Capitals

2-1-0

Has last change

Friday, October 9

7:00 PM ET · Capital One Arena

The short version

Before the game

The Rangers come in hot

The Capitals are 2-1-0. The Rangers have won four straight. The two have been about even at controlling the play lately and Washington has home ice. Washington can tip it if they get good looks.

The Capitals are 2-1-0. The Rangers have won four straight. The two have been about even at controlling the play lately and Washington has home ice. For the Rangers, the difference could be a power play that gets going.

The Rangers’ power play has a soft target in the Capitals’ kill.

Who to watch

  • MissingMatt Roy has missed the Capitals’ latest game.
  • Hot streakAdam Fox has a point in four straight games.
  • Hot streakGabe Perreault has a point in four straight games.

  1. Special teams lean toward the Rangers

    The Rangers’ power play is one of the league’s best, and the Capitals’ kill is near the bottom of the league. The Capitals need to stay out of the box.

    The call The Rangers’ power play creates at least their usual 8.3 expected goals per 60.

    NY Rangers 5th for power play (8.3 expected goals per 60) · Washington 27th for penalty kill

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 5 and 3 games this season

  2. The Rangers feed on mistakes, and the Capitals make them

    The Rangers turn stolen pucks into chances, and the Capitals are the league’s worst at avoiding breakdowns. A sloppy pass or two could cost the Capitals.

    The call The Rangers get at least their usual 7.6% of their 5-on-5 chances right after winning the puck.

    NY Rangers 10th for chances off turnovers (7.6% of their chances come right after winning the puck) · Washington 32nd for avoiding breakdowns

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 5 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 NY Rangers and Washington play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

New York RangersWashington 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 5 and 3 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 5 games for NY Rangers, 3 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

    • NY Rangers: 52.1 shot attempts per 6027th of 32

      NY Rangers: 50.5 shot attempts per 6025th of 32

    • Washington: 58.7 shot attempts per 6010th of 32

      Washington: 60.2 shot attempts per 609th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • NY Rangers: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot14th of 32

      NY Rangers: a 7.2% chance of scoring on the average shot5th of 32

    • Washington: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot6th of 32

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

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • NY Rangers: 10.1% of chances come from rebounds25th of 32

      NY Rangers: 7.3% of chances come from rebounds22nd of 32

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

      Washington: 14.1% of chances come from rebounds8th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • NY Rangers: 7.6% of chances come right after a turnover10th of 32

      NY Rangers: 9.1% of chances come right after a turnover13th of 32

    • Washington: 7.3% of chances come right after a turnover16th of 32

      Washington: 9.4% of chances come right after a turnover12th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • NY Rangers: 36.1% of shot attempts come from defensemen8th of 32

      NY Rangers: 35.4% of shot attempts come from defensemen11th of 32

    • Washington: 35.2% of shot attempts come from defensemen14th of 32

      Washington: 35.2% of shot attempts come from defensemen12th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • NY Rangers: 32.4% of shots come from within 20 feet3rd of 32

      NY Rangers: 39.2% of shots come from within 20 feet1st of 32

    • Washington: 31.1% of shots come from within 20 feet9th of 32

      Washington: 28.9% of shots come from within 20 feet23rd of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • NY Rangers: 56.5 shot attempts allowed per 6016th of 32

      NY Rangers: 54.4 shot attempts allowed per 6013th of 32

    • Washington: 59.4 shot attempts allowed per 6023rd of 32

      Washington: 62.9 shot attempts allowed per 6025th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • NY Rangers: a 6.2% chance of scoring on the average shot against12th of 32

      NY Rangers: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot against23rd of 32

    • Washington: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot against28th of 32

      Washington: a 6.9% chance of scoring on the average shot against26th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • NY Rangers: 0.41 defensive breakdowns per 6018th of 32

      NY Rangers: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

    • Washington: 0.52 defensive breakdowns per 6032nd of 32

      Washington: 0.92 defensive breakdowns per 6028th of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • NY Rangers: +0.21 goals saved above expected per 604th of 32

      NY Rangers: +1.11 goals saved above expected per 605th of 32

    • Washington: +0.22 goals saved above expected per 601st of 32

      Washington: +1.50 goals saved above expected per 602nd of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • NY Rangers: 77.6 shots per 60, both teams combined30th of 32

      NY Rangers: 70.1 shots per 60, both teams combined30th of 32

    • Washington: 83.6 shots per 60, both teams combined9th of 32

      Washington: 88.2 shots per 60, both teams combined5th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • NY Rangers: forecheck score 119 (100 is league average)4th of 32NY Rangers: 26.8 forecheck plays recorded per 604th of 32

      NY Rangers: forecheck score 116 (100 is league average)8th of 32NY Rangers: 28.4 forecheck plays recorded per 608th of 32

    • Washington: forecheck score 91 (100 is league average)23rd of 32Washington: 21.1 forecheck plays recorded per 6022nd of 32

      Washington: forecheck score 85 (100 is league average)23rd of 32Washington: 21.7 forecheck plays recorded per 6022nd of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • NY Rangers: hit score 118 (100 is league average)3rd of 32NY Rangers: 31.2 hits recorded per 603rd of 32

      NY Rangers: hit score 109 (100 is league average)12th of 32NY Rangers: 32.1 hits recorded per 6012th of 32

    • Washington: hit score 103 (100 is league average)15th of 32Washington: 27.8 hits recorded per 6013th of 32

      Washington: hit score 116 (100 is league average)9th of 32Washington: 35.4 hits recorded per 606th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • NY Rangers: 41.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six20th of 32

      NY Rangers: 41.9% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six19th of 32

    • Washington: 43.1% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six9th of 32

      Washington: 45.2% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six3rd of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • NY Rangers: 8.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play5th of 32

      NY Rangers: 9.7 expected goals per 60 on the power play6th of 32

    • Washington: 7.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play21st of 32

      Washington: 6.2 expected goals per 60 on the power play21st of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • NY Rangers: 7.7 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded20th of 32

      NY Rangers: 5.1 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded7th of 32

    • Washington: 8.1 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded27th of 32

      Washington: 9.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded27th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • NY Rangers: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded28th of 32

      NY Rangers: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded28th of 32

    • Washington: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded25th of 32

      Washington: 0.6 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded20th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • NY Rangers: 0.22 more penalties taken than drawn per 6030th of 32

      NY Rangers: 0.60 more penalties taken than drawn per 6026th of 32

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

      Washington: 1.67 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 (5 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.

New York Rangers

Washington Capitals

Worth knowing

  • NY Rangers S. Durzi has started killing penalties: on the ice for 45% of the team’s shorthanded time in 5 games, up from 7% last season.

Who Washington is likely to send against whom

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

NY Rangers’s lines tonightL1 Zibanejad · Lafrenière · PerreaultL2 Tolvanen · Cuylle · LabaL3 Miller · Dorofeyev · KartyeL4 Bjorkstrand · Chmelar · Beaudoin

Washington forward lines against NY Rangers forward lines

  • L1Wilson · Tuch · DuboisNYR L117%NYR L262%NYR L315%NYR L46%
  • L2Kyrou · Protas · ProtasNYR L137%NYR L213%NYR L328%NYR L422%
  • L3Jenner · Sourdif · LeonardNYR L121%NYR L218%NYR L338%NYR L422%
  • L4Ovechkin · Strome · BeauvillierNYR L138%NYR L27%NYR L333%NYR L422%

Washington defense pairs against NY Rangers forward lines

  • P1Chychrun · LiljegrenNYR L129%NYR L231%NYR L329%NYR L412%
  • P2Desharnais · FehérváryNYR L130%NYR L226%NYR L327%NYR L416%
  • P3McIlrath · HutsonNYR L118%NYR L211%NYR L335%NYR L436%

Based on 1 Washington 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

NY Rangers power play against Washington penalty kill

  • NY Rangers power play

    8.3 expected goals per 60 · 5th of 32

  • Washington penalty kill

    8.1 expected goals allowed per 60 · 27th of 32

NY Rangers power play

PP169% of the time

Creates 8.5 expected goals per 60

  • A. FoxQuarterback
  • A. LafrenièreDistributor
  • M. ZibanejadTrigger
  • P. Dorofeyev
  • J. MillerNet-front

PP231% of the time

Creates 7.5 expected goals per 60

  • S. DurziQuarterback
  • W. CuylleTrigger
  • E. Tolvanen
  • G. PerreaultDistributor
  • O. Bjorkstrand

 

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

Washington penalty kill

Starts the kill

Second wave

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

I. Shesterkin54 starts · 1520 shots, this season and last

+27.2 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.977 772 shots
Medium-danger save %
.888 538 shots
High-danger save %
.738 210 shots
Shots faced per 60
27.9
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.33
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 chancesI. ShesterkinD. GarandL. ThompsonC. Lindgren

L. Thompson59 starts · 1650 shots, this season and last

+40.3 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.976 830 shots
Medium-danger save %
.899 557 shots
High-danger save %
.738 263 shots
Shots faced per 60
27.8
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.54
Quality starts
69%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • I. Shesterkin: +27.2 goals saved above expected in 54 starts
    • L. Thompson: +40.3 goals saved above expected in 59 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • I. Shesterkin: 27.9 shots faced per 60
    • L. Thompson: 27.8 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • I. Shesterkin: 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
    • I. Shesterkin: 0.33 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • L. Thompson: 0.54 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • I. Shesterkin: a typical wait of 72 seconds between shots
    • L. Thompson: a typical wait of 73 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • I. Shesterkin: a quality start 67% of the time
    • L. Thompson: a quality start 69% of the time

I. Shesterkin, 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)

I. Shesterkin4 starts · 95 shots, this season

+3.9 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
1.000 40 shots
Medium-danger save %
.909 44 shots
High-danger save %
.727 11 shots
Shots faced per 60
23.8
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
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 chancesI. ShesterkinD. GarandL. ThompsonC. Lindgren

L. Thompson2 starts · 63 shots, this season

+2.9 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.962 26 shots
Medium-danger save %
.917 24 shots
High-danger save %
.846 13 shots
Shots faced per 60
31.5
Defensive breakdowns per 60
1.5
Quality starts
100%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • I. Shesterkin: +3.9 goals saved above expected in 4 starts
    • L. Thompson: +2.9 goals saved above expected in 2 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • I. Shesterkin: 23.8 shots faced per 60
    • L. Thompson: 31.5 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • I. Shesterkin: the average shot he faces has a 7.2% chance of going in
    • L. Thompson: the average shot he faces has a 8.4% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • I. Shesterkin: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • L. Thompson: 1.5 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • I. Shesterkin: a typical wait of 87 seconds between shots
    • L. Thompson: a typical wait of 70 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • I. Shesterkin: a quality start 100% of the time
    • L. Thompson: a quality start 100% of the time

I. Shesterkin, 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
NY RangersWashingtonLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play55.2%54.8%
  • Power play22.4%16.2%
  • Rebound6.8%11.8%
  • Empty net6.8%9.2%
  • Off a turnover3.2%4%
  • Goalie pulled2.4%1.8%
  • Shorthanded2%1.1%
  • Off a faceoff win1.2%1.1%

250 NY Rangers goals and 272 Washington goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play37.5%45.5%
  • Power play18.8%18.2%
  • Rebound6.2%9.1%
  • Empty net31.2%0%
  • Off a turnover6.2%27.3%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

16 NY Rangers goals and 11 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: New York Rangers · Washington Capitals