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

DAL

Dallas Stars

2-2-0

PIT

Pittsburgh Penguins

2-2-1

Has last change

Saturday, October 10

7:00 PM ET · PPG Paints Arena

The short version

Before the game

Strength against strength

The Penguins haven’t won in three. The Stars have won two in a row, the last a 4-0 rout of Buffalo. Dallas has had more of the chances over recent games, Pittsburgh is playing for the second night in a row, and Pittsburgh has home ice. Pittsburgh’s best way to tip it is getting good looks.

The Penguins haven’t won in three. The Stars have won two in a row, the last a 4-0 rout of Buffalo. Dallas has had more of the chances over recent games, Pittsburgh is playing for the second night in a row, and Pittsburgh has home ice. Pittsburgh can still swing it if they get good looks.

It’s strength against strength: the Stars for the power play, the Penguins at the penalty kill. The Stars make their shots count, and the Penguins allow dangerous ones.

Who to watch

  • Owns themJamie Benn has a point in five straight games against Pittsburgh.
  • Haunts themTommy Novak has five goals in eight games against Dallas since 2023-24, most of them with Nashville.
  • Still outM. Duchene is out long term (lower body injury) and hasn’t played yet this season.
  • Slow startWyatt Johnston is still looking for his first goal of the season.

  1. Strength against strength

    The Stars are one of the league’s best for the power play, and the Penguins are near the top of the league at the penalty kill. Our lean: the Stars’ power play wins out. Power plays usually beat kills in these spots.

    The call The Stars’ power play creates more than the league-average 7.5 expected goals per 60 against the Penguins.

    Dallas 3rd for the power play (9.0 expected goals per 60) · Pittsburgh 6th for the penalty kill

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 4 and 5 games this season

  2. The Penguins give up good looks, and the Stars take them

    The Penguins have struggled to prevent dangerous shots, and the Stars don’t waste many.

    The call The Stars’ average shot has at least their usual 6.7% chance of going in.

    Dallas 4th for shot quality (a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Pittsburgh 27th for preventing dangerous shots

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 4 and 5 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 Dallas and Pittsburgh play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Dallas StarsPittsburgh PenguinsLeague 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 5 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 4 games for Dallas, 5 for Pittsburgh. 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

    • Dallas: 53.8 shot attempts per 6024th of 32

      Dallas: 56.9 shot attempts per 6013th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 58.8 shot attempts per 609th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 58.8 shot attempts per 609th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Dallas: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot4th of 32

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

    • Pittsburgh: a 6.9% chance of scoring on the average shot3rd of 32

      Pittsburgh: a 7.4% chance of scoring on the average shot3rd of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Dallas: 10.5% of chances come from rebounds4th of 32

      Dallas: 12.0% of chances come from rebounds13th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 10.0% of chances come from rebounds28th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 5.8% of chances come from rebounds27th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Dallas: 7.0% of chances come right after a turnover25th of 32

      Dallas: 8.2% of chances come right after a turnover16th of 32

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

      Pittsburgh: 6.7% of chances come right after a turnover20th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Dallas: 34.1% of shot attempts come from defensemen20th of 32

      Dallas: 32.6% of shot attempts come from defensemen21st of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 34.4% of shot attempts come from defensemen17th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 36.1% of shot attempts come from defensemen9th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Dallas: 33.0% of shots come from within 20 feet2nd of 32

      Dallas: 33.1% of shots come from within 20 feet14th of 32

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

      Pittsburgh: 36.8% of shots come from within 20 feet3rd of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Dallas: 53.6 shot attempts allowed per 607th of 32

      Dallas: 51.8 shot attempts allowed per 6010th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 58.8 shot attempts allowed per 6022nd of 32

      Pittsburgh: 62.2 shot attempts allowed per 6025th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Dallas: a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot against17th of 32

      Dallas: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot against21st of 32

    • Pittsburgh: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot against27th of 32

      Pittsburgh: a 6.8% chance of scoring on the average shot against23rd of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Dallas: 0.39 defensive breakdowns per 6011th of 32

      Dallas: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 0.42 defensive breakdowns per 6020th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 0.76 defensive breakdowns per 6027th of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Dallas: +0.14 goals saved above expected per 607th of 32

      Dallas: +1.16 goals saved above expected per 603rd of 32

    • Pittsburgh: +0.08 goals saved above expected per 6023rd of 32

      Pittsburgh: +0.38 goals saved above expected per 6016th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Dallas: 74.5 shots per 60, both teams combined32nd of 32

      Dallas: 72.2 shots per 60, both teams combined29th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 84.9 shots per 60, both teams combined3rd of 32

      Pittsburgh: 90.4 shots per 60, both teams combined3rd of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Dallas: forecheck score 93 (100 is league average)20th of 32Dallas: 21.1 forecheck plays recorded per 6021st of 32

      Dallas: forecheck score 92 (100 is league average)18th of 32Dallas: 22.5 forecheck plays recorded per 6018th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: forecheck score 70 (100 is league average)32nd of 32Pittsburgh: 15.8 forecheck plays recorded per 6032nd of 32

      Pittsburgh: forecheck score 56 (100 is league average)32nd of 32Pittsburgh: 13.5 forecheck plays recorded per 6032nd of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Dallas: hit score 96 (100 is league average)21st of 32Dallas: 26.0 hits recorded per 6018th of 32

      Dallas: hit score 99 (100 is league average)17th of 32Dallas: 29.2 hits recorded per 6017th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: hit score 66 (100 is league average)32nd of 32Pittsburgh: 17.2 hits recorded per 6032nd of 32

      Pittsburgh: hit score 51 (100 is league average)32nd of 32Pittsburgh: 14.2 hits recorded per 6032nd of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Dallas: 41.8% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six18th of 32

      Dallas: 42.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six15th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 43.6% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six6th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 43.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six11th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Dallas: 9.0 expected goals per 60 on the power play3rd of 32

      Dallas: 10.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play2nd of 32

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

      Pittsburgh: 6.6 expected goals per 60 on the power play19th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Dallas: 6.8 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded5th of 32

      Dallas: 3.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded1st of 32

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

      Pittsburgh: 6.8 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded16th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Dallas: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded28th of 32

      Dallas: 0.1 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded27th of 32

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

      Pittsburgh: 2.1 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded4th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Dallas: 0.08 more penalties taken than drawn per 6022nd of 32

      Dallas: 0.25 more penalties taken than drawn per 6019th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 0.01 more penalties taken than drawn per 6020th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 0.39 more penalties drawn than taken per 6011th 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

Pittsburgh 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 5 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.

Dallas Stars

Pittsburgh Penguins

Worth knowing

  • Dallas M. Duchene is out long term (lower body injury) and has not played this season. He is a top-six forward.

Who Pittsburgh is likely to send against whom

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

Dallas’s lines tonightL1 Benn · Hintz · RobertsonL2 Seguin · Hryckowian · HyryL3 Rantanen · Steel · JohnstonL4 Blackwell · Faksa · Bäck

Pittsburgh forward lines against Dallas forward lines

  • L1Malkin · Novak · ChinakhovDAL L142%DAL L219%DAL L318%DAL L421%
  • L2Crosby · Rust · RakellDAL L163%DAL L215%DAL L310%DAL L411%
  • L3Dewar · Lizotte · RobertsonDAL L171%DAL L227%DAL L32%DAL L40%
  • L4Lapierre · Koivunen · KindelDAL L123%DAL L258%DAL L31%DAL L418%

Pittsburgh defense pairs against Dallas forward lines

  • P1Girard · KorczakDAL L161%DAL L226%DAL L36%DAL L47%
  • P2Karlsson · CarlileDAL L154%DAL L226%DAL L313%DAL L47%
  • P3Letang · van RiemsdykDAL L132%DAL L236%DAL L32%DAL L430%

Based on 2 Pittsburgh 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

Dallas power play against Pittsburgh penalty kill

  • Dallas power play

    9.0 expected goals per 60 · 3rd of 32

  • Pittsburgh penalty kill

    7.0 expected goals allowed per 60 · 6th of 32

Dallas power play

PP173% of the time

Creates 9.2 expected goals per 60

  • M. HeiskanenQuarterback
  • M. Rantanenboth unitsDistributor
  • J. Robertson
  • W. JohnstonTrigger
  • R. HintzNet-front

PP227% of the time

Creates 6.8 expected goals per 60

  • T. HarleyQuarterback
  • M. Rantanenboth unitsTrigger
  • J. HryckowianNet-front
  • T. SeguinNet-front
  • J. Benn

 

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

Pittsburgh 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. Oettinger55 starts · 1433 shots, this season and last

+12.3 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.977 755 shots
Medium-danger save %
.861 476 shots
High-danger save %
.718 202 shots
Shots faced per 60
25.5
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.36
Quality starts
62%

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. OettingerC. DeSmithA. SilovsS. Murashov

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%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Oettinger: +12.3 goals saved above expected in 55 starts
    • A. Silovs: −4.8 goals saved above expected in 39 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Oettinger: 25.5 shots faced per 60
    • A. Silovs: 27 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Oettinger: the average shot he faces has a 7.0% chance of going in
    • A. Silovs: the average shot he faces has a 7.1% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Oettinger: 0.36 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • A. Silovs: 0.42 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Oettinger: a typical wait of 80 seconds between shots
    • A. Silovs: a typical wait of 77 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Oettinger: a quality start 62% of the time
    • A. Silovs: a quality start 51% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Oettinger3 starts · 61 shots, this season

+4.5 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
1.000 35 shots
Medium-danger save %
1.000 18 shots
High-danger save %
.750 8 shots
Shots faced per 60
20.5
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 chancesJ. OettingerC. DeSmithA. SilovsS. Murashov

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%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Oettinger: +4.5 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
    • A. Silovs: −1.1 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Oettinger: 20.5 shots faced per 60
    • A. Silovs: 24 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Oettinger: the average shot he faces has a 7.1% chance of going in
    • A. Silovs: the average shot he faces has a 7.1% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Oettinger: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • A. Silovs: 0.68 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Oettinger: a typical wait of 76 seconds between shots
    • A. Silovs: a typical wait of 78 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Oettinger: a quality start 100% of the time
    • A. Silovs: a quality start 33% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

A. Silovs, 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
DallasPittsburghLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play52.7%56.7%
  • Power play26.5%19.6%
  • Rebound7%5%
  • Empty net4%5.3%
  • Off a turnover2%6.5%
  • Goalie pulled3.7%3.4%
  • Shorthanded1.3%1.6%
  • Off a faceoff win2.7%1.9%

298 Dallas goals and 321 Pittsburgh goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play80%70%
  • Power play10%20%
  • Rebound0%0%
  • Empty net0%0%
  • Off a turnover10%5%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%5%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

10 Dallas goals and 20 Pittsburgh 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: Dallas Stars · Pittsburgh Penguins