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

PIT

Pittsburgh Penguins

2-2-0

CBJ

Columbus Blue Jackets

1-1-0

Has last change

Friday, October 9

7:00 PM ET · Nationwide Arena

The short version

Before the game

Something has to give

The Penguins come in at 2-2-0, the Blue Jackets at 1-1-0. The two have been about even at controlling the play lately and Columbus has home ice. Columbus can tip it if they get good looks.

The Penguins come in at 2-2-0, the Blue Jackets at 1-1-0. The two have been about even at controlling the play lately and Columbus has home ice. Columbus can still swing it if they get good looks.

It’s strength against strength: the Penguins for chance quality, the Blue Jackets at preventing dangerous shots. The Penguins and the Blue Jackets sit at opposite ends for penalty kill.

Who to watch

  • Haunts themSidney Crosby has eight goals in eleven games against Columbus since 2023-24.
  • Old teamEgor Chinakhov faces his old team, Columbus.
  • Old teamDanton Heinen faces his old team, Pittsburgh.

  1. Something has to give

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

    The call The Penguins’ chances are more dangerous than the league average (a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot) against the Blue Jackets.

    Pittsburgh 3rd for chance quality (a 6.8% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Columbus 8th for preventing dangerous shots

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 4 and 2 games this season

  2. The Penguins kill penalties far better than the Blue Jackets

    On the penalty kill, Pittsburgh is near the top of the league and Columbus is one of the league’s worst. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Penguins’ penalty kill allows less per 60 than the Blue Jackets’.

    Penalty kill: Pittsburgh 6th, Columbus 31st

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 4 and 2 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 Pittsburgh and Columbus play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Pittsburgh PenguinsColumbus Blue JacketsLeague 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 2 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 4 games for Pittsburgh, 2 for Columbus. 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

    • Pittsburgh: 60.0 shot attempts per 608th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 61.3 shot attempts per 608th of 32

    • Columbus: 54.7 shot attempts per 6021st of 32

      Columbus: 43.2 shot attempts per 6029th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Pittsburgh: a 6.8% chance of scoring on the average shot3rd of 32

      Pittsburgh: a 7.2% chance of scoring on the average shot6th of 32

    • Columbus: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot13th of 32

      Columbus: a 7.9% chance of scoring on the average shot1st of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Pittsburgh: 10.0% of chances come from rebounds29th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 3.3% of chances come from rebounds28th of 32

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

      Columbus: 13.6% of chances come from rebounds10th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

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

      Pittsburgh: 8.2% of chances come right after a turnover18th of 32

    • Columbus: 7.2% of chances come right after a turnover21st of 32

      Columbus: 1.4% of chances come right after a turnover31st of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Pittsburgh: 34.6% of shot attempts come from defensemen15th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 36.9% of shot attempts come from defensemen7th of 32

    • Columbus: 36.1% of shot attempts come from defensemen7th of 32

      Columbus: 33.3% of shot attempts come from defensemen16th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Pittsburgh: 34.3% of shots come from within 20 feet1st of 32

      Pittsburgh: 37.5% of shots come from within 20 feet2nd of 32

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

      Columbus: 31.4% of shots come from within 20 feet19th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Pittsburgh: 57.2 shot attempts allowed per 6017th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 58.0 shot attempts allowed per 6021st of 32

    • Columbus: 58.0 shot attempts allowed per 6018th of 32

      Columbus: 60.2 shot attempts allowed per 6023rd of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Pittsburgh: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot against23rd of 32

      Pittsburgh: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot against21st of 32

    • Columbus: a 6.1% chance of scoring on the average shot against8th of 32

      Columbus: a 5.5% chance of scoring on the average shot against3rd of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Pittsburgh: 0.42 defensive breakdowns per 6021st of 32

      Pittsburgh: 0.96 defensive breakdowns per 6030th of 32

    • Columbus: 0.38 defensive breakdowns per 606th of 32

      Columbus: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Pittsburgh: +0.05 goals saved above expected per 6025th of 32

      Pittsburgh: −0.30 goals saved above expected per 6021st of 32

    • Columbus: +0.16 goals saved above expected per 607th of 32

      Columbus: −0.62 goals saved above expected per 6025th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Pittsburgh: 84.4 shots per 60, both teams combined4th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 89.3 shots per 60, both teams combined4th of 32

    • Columbus: 82.9 shots per 60, both teams combined12th of 32

      Columbus: 70.1 shots per 60, both teams combined31st of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Pittsburgh: forecheck score 76 (100 is league average)32nd of 32Pittsburgh: 17.3 forecheck plays recorded per 6032nd of 32

      Pittsburgh: forecheck score 66 (100 is league average)32nd of 32Pittsburgh: 16.0 forecheck plays recorded per 6032nd of 32

    • Columbus: forecheck score 108 (100 is league average)8th of 32Columbus: 23.3 forecheck plays recorded per 6012th of 32

      Columbus: forecheck score 109 (100 is league average)10th of 32Columbus: 24.7 forecheck plays recorded per 6013th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Pittsburgh: hit score 68 (100 is league average)32nd of 32Pittsburgh: 18.0 hits recorded per 6032nd of 32

      Pittsburgh: hit score 52 (100 is league average)32nd of 32Pittsburgh: 15.1 hits recorded per 6032nd of 32

    • Columbus: hit score 105 (100 is league average)12th of 32Columbus: 26.1 hits recorded per 6018th of 32

      Columbus: hit score 120 (100 is league average)7th of 32Columbus: 32.4 hits recorded per 6011th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Pittsburgh: 43.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six6th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 43.9% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six10th of 32

    • Columbus: 42.6% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six13th of 32

      Columbus: 43.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six12th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Pittsburgh: 7.6 expected goals per 60 on the power play11th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 7.8 expected goals per 60 on the power play11th of 32

    • Columbus: 7.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play17th of 32

      Columbus: 7.0 expected goals per 60 on the power play17th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Pittsburgh: 7.0 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded6th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 6.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded13th of 32

    • Columbus: 8.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded31st of 32

      Columbus: 10.5 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded31st of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Pittsburgh: 1.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded8th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 3.1 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded1st of 32

    • Columbus: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded18th of 32

      Columbus: 0.3 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded24th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Pittsburgh: 0.02 more penalties drawn than taken per 6017th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 0.99 more penalties drawn than taken per 604th of 32

    • Columbus: 0.17 more penalties taken than drawn per 6027th of 32

      Columbus: 1.50 more penalties taken than drawn per 6030th 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

Columbus 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 2 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.

Pittsburgh Penguins

Columbus Blue Jackets

Who Columbus is likely to send against whom

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

Pittsburgh’s lines tonightL1 Malkin · Novak · ChinakhovL2 Crosby · Rakell · RobertsonL3 Rust · Koivunen · KindelL4 Dewar · Lizotte · Lapierre

Columbus forward lines against Pittsburgh forward lines

  • L1Johnson · Knies · FantilliPIT L134%PIT L224%PIT L330%PIT L412%
  • L2Coyle · Olivier · SillingerPIT L151%PIT L221%PIT L319%PIT L49%
  • L3Monahan · Nichushkin · VoronkovPIT L122%PIT L221%PIT L331%PIT L426%
  • L4Heinen · Garland · LombergPIT L129%PIT L218%PIT L343%PIT L410%

Columbus defense pairs against Pittsburgh forward lines

  • P1Werenski · MateychukPIT L134%PIT L222%PIT L332%PIT L413%
  • P2Soucy · AndraePIT L136%PIT L219%PIT L330%PIT L415%
  • P3Gudbranson · ChristiansenPIT L128%PIT L225%PIT L320%PIT L428%

Based on 2 Columbus 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

Pittsburgh power play against Columbus penalty kill

  • Pittsburgh power play

    7.6 expected goals per 60 · 11th of 32

  • Columbus penalty kill

    8.6 expected goals allowed per 60 · 31st of 32

Pittsburgh power play

PP171% of the time

Creates 7.9 expected goals per 60

  • E. KarlssonQuarterback
  • S. CrosbyDistributor
  • R. RakellTrigger
  • T. Novak
  • B. Kindel

PP229% of the time

Creates 6.7 expected goals per 60

  • K. LetangQuarterback
  • E. Chinakhov
  • E. MalkinTrigger
  • H. Lapierre
  • A. Kuzmenko

 

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

Columbus 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

A. Silovs39 starts · 1092 shots, this season and last

−4.8 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.964 529 shots
Medium-danger save %
.867 413 shots
High-danger save %
.660 150 shots
Shots faced per 60
27
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.42
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 chancesA. SilovsS. MurashovJ. Greaves

J. Greaves57 starts · 1596 shots, this season and last

+19.4 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.967 844 shots
Medium-danger save %
.872 517 shots
High-danger save %
.766 235 shots
Shots faced per 60
28.2
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.34
Quality starts
65%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • A. Silovs: −4.8 goals saved above expected in 39 starts
    • J. Greaves: +19.4 goals saved above expected in 57 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • A. Silovs: 27 shots faced per 60
    • J. Greaves: 28.2 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • A. Silovs: the average shot he faces has a 7.1% chance of going in
    • J. Greaves: the average shot he faces has a 6.8% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • A. Silovs: 0.42 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • J. Greaves: 0.34 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • A. Silovs: a typical wait of 77 seconds between shots
    • J. Greaves: a typical wait of 71 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • A. Silovs: a quality start 51% of the time
    • J. Greaves: a quality start 65% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

A. Silovs3 starts · 71 shots, this season

−1.1 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
1.000 32 shots
Medium-danger save %
.714 28 shots
High-danger save %
.818 11 shots
Shots faced per 60
24
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.68
Quality starts
33%

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 chancesA. SilovsS. MurashovJ. Greaves

J. Greaves2 starts · 57 shots, this season

−1.2 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.964 28 shots
Medium-danger save %
.762 21 shots
High-danger save %
.875 8 shots
Shots faced per 60
28.5
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
0%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • A. Silovs: −1.1 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
    • J. Greaves: −1.2 goals saved above expected in 2 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • A. Silovs: 24 shots faced per 60
    • J. Greaves: 28.5 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • A. Silovs: the average shot he faces has a 7.1% chance of going in
    • J. Greaves: the average shot he faces has a 6.6% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • A. Silovs: 0.68 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • J. Greaves: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • A. Silovs: a typical wait of 78 seconds between shots
    • J. Greaves: a typical wait of 67 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • A. Silovs: a quality start 33% of the time
    • J. Greaves: a quality start 0% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Greaves, 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
PittsburghColumbusLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play56.4%60.1%
  • Power play19.7%15.8%
  • Rebound5%6.7%
  • Empty net5.3%6.7%
  • Off a turnover6.6%4.7%
  • Goalie pulled3.4%1.2%
  • Shorthanded1.6%2%
  • Off a faceoff win1.9%2.8%

319 Pittsburgh goals and 253 Columbus goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play66.7%42.9%
  • Power play22.2%28.6%
  • Rebound0%0%
  • Empty net0%14.3%
  • Off a turnover5.6%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded5.6%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%14.3%

18 Pittsburgh goals and 7 Columbus 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: Pittsburgh Penguins · Columbus Blue Jackets