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

CAR

Carolina Hurricanes

3-1-1

CHI

Chicago Blackhawks

1-4-0

Has last change

Saturday, October 10

7:00 PM ET · United Center

The short version

Before the game

The Hurricanes should pile up the shots

The Blackhawks are 1-4-0. The Hurricanes have won three straight, the last a 7-2 rout of Vancouver. Carolina has controlled the play far better over recent games and Chicago has home ice. Chicago could still pull it off if they pounce on loose pucks, but they might need a miracle.

The Blackhawks are 1-4-0. The Hurricanes have won three straight, the last a 7-2 rout of Vancouver. Carolina has controlled the play far better over recent games and Chicago has home ice. Anything short of a win would be a surprise, though Chicago can make a game of it if they pounce on loose pucks.

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

Who to watch

  • Hot streakSebastian Aho has a point in four straight games.
  • Hot streakAndrei Svechnikov has a point in four straight games.
  • Still outSeth Jarvis hasn’t played yet this season.
  • Old teamTeuvo Teravainen faces his old team, Carolina.

  1. The Hurricanes should pile up the shots

    Few teams shoot like the Hurricanes, and the Blackhawks are near the bottom of the league at keeping shots away. It could be a long night in the Blackhawks’ end.

    The call The Hurricanes take at least their usual 65.8 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Carolina 3rd for shot volume (65.8 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5) · Chicago 26th for shot suppression

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

  2. The Blackhawks’ goalie is in for some dangerous shots

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

    The call The Hurricanes’ average shot has at least their usual 6.6% chance of going in.

    Carolina 9th for shot quality (a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Chicago 22nd for preventing dangerous shots

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 5 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 Carolina and Chicago play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Carolina HurricanesChicago BlackhawksLeague 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 5 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 5 games for Carolina, 5 for Chicago. 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

    • Carolina: 65.8 shot attempts per 603rd of 32

      Carolina: 62.7 shot attempts per 608th of 32

    • Chicago: 45.8 shot attempts per 6030th of 32

      Chicago: 42.8 shot attempts per 6030th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Carolina: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot9th of 32

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

    • Chicago: a 6.0% chance of scoring on the average shot28th of 32

      Chicago: a 5.5% chance of scoring on the average shot28th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Carolina: 10.3% of chances come from rebounds15th of 32

      Carolina: 17.1% of chances come from rebounds5th of 32

    • Chicago: 10.3% of chances come from rebounds14th of 32

      Chicago: 8.9% of chances come from rebounds18th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Carolina: 7.8% of chances come right after a turnover2nd of 32

      Carolina: 5.5% of chances come right after a turnover22nd of 32

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

      Chicago: 4.2% of chances come right after a turnover26th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Carolina: 38.0% of shot attempts come from defensemen1st of 32

      Carolina: 37.9% of shot attempts come from defensemen5th of 32

    • Chicago: 35.4% of shot attempts come from defensemen12th of 32

      Chicago: 33.9% of shot attempts come from defensemen17th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Carolina: 29.7% of shots come from within 20 feet22nd of 32

      Carolina: 34.2% of shots come from within 20 feet7th of 32

    • Chicago: 26.5% of shots come from within 20 feet32nd of 32

      Chicago: 25.0% of shots come from within 20 feet29th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Carolina: 44.6 shot attempts allowed per 601st of 32

      Carolina: 40.2 shot attempts allowed per 602nd of 32

    • Chicago: 60.0 shot attempts allowed per 6026th of 32

      Chicago: 60.4 shot attempts allowed per 6024th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Carolina: a 7.2% chance of scoring on the average shot against32nd of 32

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

    • Chicago: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot against22nd of 32

      Chicago: a 6.8% chance of scoring on the average shot against24th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Carolina: 0.43 defensive breakdowns per 6023rd of 32

      Carolina: 0.27 defensive breakdowns per 6010th of 32

    • Chicago: 0.37 defensive breakdowns per 605th of 32

      Chicago: 0.48 defensive breakdowns per 6018th of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Carolina: +0.08 goals saved above expected per 6022nd of 32

      Carolina: −0.25 goals saved above expected per 6021st of 32

    • Chicago: +0.08 goals saved above expected per 6021st of 32

      Chicago: −0.47 goals saved above expected per 6023rd of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Carolina: 81.4 shots per 60, both teams combined20th of 32

      Carolina: 73.4 shots per 60, both teams combined27th of 32

    • Chicago: 81.3 shots per 60, both teams combined21st of 32

      Chicago: 78.7 shots per 60, both teams combined19th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Carolina: forecheck score 124 (100 is league average)2nd of 32Carolina: 28.8 forecheck plays recorded per 602nd of 32

      Carolina: forecheck score 129 (100 is league average)3rd of 32Carolina: 32.4 forecheck plays recorded per 603rd of 32

    • Chicago: forecheck score 83 (100 is league average)29th of 32Chicago: 18.6 forecheck plays recorded per 6030th of 32

      Chicago: forecheck score 84 (100 is league average)24th of 32Chicago: 20.2 forecheck plays recorded per 6026th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Carolina: hit score 116 (100 is league average)6th of 32Carolina: 30.5 hits recorded per 605th of 32

      Carolina: hit score 129 (100 is league average)3rd of 32Carolina: 37.3 hits recorded per 603rd of 32

    • Chicago: hit score 76 (100 is league average)31st of 32Chicago: 20.0 hits recorded per 6030th of 32

      Chicago: hit score 72 (100 is league average)29th of 32Chicago: 20.7 hits recorded per 6029th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Carolina: 44.0% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six3rd of 32

      Carolina: 44.3% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six6th of 32

    • Chicago: 41.2% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six22nd of 32

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

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Carolina: 8.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play6th of 32

      Carolina: 10.0 expected goals per 60 on the power play3rd of 32

    • Chicago: 6.1 expected goals per 60 on the power play31st of 32

      Chicago: 4.6 expected goals per 60 on the power play27th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

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

      Carolina: 4.2 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded3rd of 32

    • Chicago: 7.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded16th of 32

      Chicago: 6.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded13th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

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

      Carolina: 1.6 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded5th of 32

    • Chicago: 1.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded13th of 32

      Chicago: 2.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded1st of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Carolina: 0.05 more penalties drawn than taken per 6012th of 32

      Carolina: 0.58 more penalties drawn than taken per 607th of 32

    • Chicago: 0.09 more penalties taken than drawn per 6024th of 32

      Chicago: 0.40 more penalties taken than drawn per 6024th 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

Chicago 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 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.

Carolina Hurricanes

Chicago Blackhawks

Worth knowing

  • Carolina S. Jarvis has not played this season. He is a top-six forward. W. Carrier has taken his spot beside S. Aho and A. Svechnikov.
  • Carolina L. Stankoven has started killing penalties: on the ice for 30% of the team’s shorthanded time in 5 games, up from 1% last season.
  • Chicago F. Nazar is suspended, reported after he played in their last game. He is a top-six forward.
  • Chicago T. Teravainen is no longer playing on the power play: 0% of the team’s power-play time in 3 games, down from 58% last season.

Who Chicago is likely to send against whom

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

Carolina’s lines tonightL1 Hall · Stankoven · BlakeL2 Carrier · Aho · SvechnikovL3 Staal · Martinook · EhlersL4 Jankowski · Robinson · Kotkaniemi

Chicago forward lines against Carolina forward lines

  • L1Greenway · Smith · GreeneCAR L146%CAR L213%CAR L321%CAR L420%
  • L2Bertuzzi · Kantserov · FrondellCAR L141%CAR L239%CAR L318%CAR L41%
  • L3Kane · Nazar · LardisCAR L124%CAR L233%CAR L321%CAR L422%
  • L4Toninato · Donato · MooreCAR L18%CAR L230%CAR L320%CAR L442%

Chicago defense pairs against Carolina forward lines

  • P1Cole · VlasicCAR L172%CAR L213%CAR L38%CAR L47%
  • P2Byram · LevshunovCAR L112%CAR L248%CAR L317%CAR L423%
  • P3Kaiser · RinzelCAR L14%CAR L231%CAR L339%CAR L426%

Based on 1 Chicago 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

Carolina power play against Chicago penalty kill

  • Carolina power play

    8.3 expected goals per 60 · 6th of 32

  • Chicago penalty kill

    7.4 expected goals allowed per 60 · 16th of 32

Worth knowing

  • J. Staal is sent out to take power-play faceoffs, then changes. He has taken 68% of the team’s power-play draws but stays on for about 20 seconds at a time, against 61 for the regulars, and is most often replaced by N. Ehlers (15 of 18 changes).

Carolina power play

PP171% of the time

Creates 8.9 expected goals per 60

  • S. GostisbehereQuarterback
  • J. Blakeboth units
  • S. Aho
  • A. SvechnikovTrigger
  • N. Ehlers(J. Staal)both unitsDistributor

PP229% of the time

Creates 7.8 expected goals per 60

  • K. MillerQuarterback
  • J. Blakeboth unitsTrigger
  • N. Ehlers(J. Staal)both unitsDistributor
  • L. StankovenNet-front
  • T. HallNet-front

 

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

Chicago 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

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%

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 chancesB. BussiP. KochetkovS. KnightA. Soderblom

S. Knight58 starts · 1674 shots, this season and last

+15.8 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.981 828 shots
Medium-danger save %
.855 602 shots
High-danger save %
.746 244 shots
Shots faced per 60
28.9
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.38
Quality starts
50%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • B. Bussi: +1.0 goals saved above expected in 42 starts
    • S. Knight: +15.8 goals saved above expected in 58 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • B. Bussi: 23.1 shots faced per 60
    • S. Knight: 28.9 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • B. Bussi: the average shot he faces has a 7.5% chance of going in
    • S. Knight: the average shot he faces has a 7.0% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • B. Bussi: 0.26 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • S. Knight: 0.38 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • B. Bussi: a typical wait of 84 seconds between shots
    • S. Knight: a typical wait of 70 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • B. Bussi: a quality start 52% of the time
    • S. Knight: a quality start 50% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

S. Knight, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

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%

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 chancesB. BussiP. KochetkovS. KnightA. Soderblom

S. Knight3 starts · 91 shots, this season

+0.3 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
1.000 40 shots
Medium-danger save %
.838 37 shots
High-danger save %
.714 14 shots
Shots faced per 60
30.5
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
33%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • B. Bussi: −2.3 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
    • S. Knight: +0.3 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • B. Bussi: 21.7 shots faced per 60
    • S. Knight: 30.5 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • B. Bussi: the average shot he faces has a 8.2% chance of going in
    • S. Knight: the average shot he faces has a 7.0% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • B. Bussi: 0.32 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • S. Knight: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • B. Bussi: a typical wait of 106 seconds between shots
    • S. Knight: a typical wait of 68 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • B. Bussi: a quality start 33% of the time
    • S. Knight: a quality start 33% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

S. Knight, 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
CarolinaChicagoLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play55.9%59.1%
  • Power play20.6%18.2%
  • Rebound5.9%7.7%
  • Empty net6.4%5%
  • Off a turnover5.1%4.5%
  • Goalie pulled2.7%0.9%
  • Shorthanded2.9%2.3%
  • Off a faceoff win0.5%2.3%

374 Carolina goals and 220 Chicago goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play44.4%60%
  • Power play38.9%10%
  • Rebound0%0%
  • Empty net5.6%20%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%10%
  • Shorthanded5.6%0%
  • Off a faceoff win5.6%0%

18 Carolina goals and 10 Chicago 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: Carolina Hurricanes · Chicago Blackhawks