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

TOR

Toronto Maple Leafs

2-2-1

COL

Colorado Avalanche

3-1-0

Has last change

Saturday, October 10

7:00 PM ET · Ball Arena

The short version

Before the game

Roy meets his old team

The Maple Leafs come in at 2-2-1, the Avalanche at 3-1-0. Colorado has controlled the play far better over recent games, Toronto will be without Tavares, and Colorado has home ice. Anything short of a win would be a surprise, though Toronto can make a game of it if they pounce on loose pucks.

The Maple Leafs come in at 2-2-1, the Avalanche at 3-1-0. Colorado has controlled the play far better over recent games, Toronto will be without Tavares, and Colorado has home ice. Toronto could still pull it off if they pounce on loose pucks, but they might need a miracle.

The Avalanche shoot a lot, and the Maple Leafs give up plenty. Both teams like a fast game.

Who to watch

  • Old teamNicolas Roy faces Toronto for the first time since leaving.
  • Owns themNathan MacKinnon has a point in six straight games against Toronto, and 12 points in his last six against them.

  1. The Maple Leafs give up shots, and the Avalanche take them

    Few teams shoot like the Avalanche, and the Maple Leafs are one of the league’s worst at keeping shots away. It could be a long night in the Maple Leafs’ end.

    The call The Avalanche take at least their usual 70.2 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Colorado 1st for shot volume (70.2 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5) · Toronto 28th for shot suppression

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

  2. Turnovers could swing this one

    The Avalanche turn stolen pucks into chances, and the Maple Leafs are near the bottom of the league at avoiding breakdowns. A sloppy pass or two could cost the Maple Leafs.

    The call The Avalanche get at least their usual 7.7% of their 5-on-5 chances right after winning the puck.

    Colorado 6th for chances off turnovers (7.7% of their chances come right after winning the puck) · Toronto 24th for avoiding breakdowns

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

  3. Expect a track meet

    Toronto plays some of the league’s fastest games, and so does Colorado. We think this one runs hotter than either team’s usual.

    The call The game runs at more than 89.0 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, faster than either team’s usual.

    Pace (shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams): Toronto 5th (84.4), Colorado 1st (89.0)

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

  4. The Avalanche kill penalties far better than the Maple Leafs

    The Avalanche are one of the league’s best for the penalty kill, at the airtight end; the Maple Leafs are the league’s worst, at the leaky end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Avalanche’s penalty kill allows less per 60 than the Maple Leafs’.

    Penalty kill: Colorado 2nd, Toronto 32nd

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

Toronto Maple LeafsColorado AvalancheLeague 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 4 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 5 games for Toronto, 4 for Colorado. 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

    • Toronto: 54.4 shot attempts per 6022nd of 32

      Toronto: 56.8 shot attempts per 6014th of 32

    • Colorado: 70.2 shot attempts per 601st of 32

      Colorado: 69.3 shot attempts per 604th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Toronto: a 6.0% chance of scoring on the average shot27th of 32

      Toronto: a 5.4% chance of scoring on the average shot30th of 32

    • Colorado: a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot20th of 32

      Colorado: a 6.1% chance of scoring on the average shot21st of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Toronto: 10.1% of chances come from rebounds23rd of 32

      Toronto: 3.1% of chances come from rebounds29th of 32

    • Colorado: 10.4% of chances come from rebounds8th of 32

      Colorado: 5.9% of chances come from rebounds26th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Toronto: 8.4% of chances come right after a turnover1st of 32

      Toronto: 1.8% of chances come right after a turnover31st of 32

    • Colorado: 7.7% of chances come right after a turnover6th of 32

      Colorado: 10.6% of chances come right after a turnover11th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Toronto: 31.8% of shot attempts come from defensemen28th of 32

      Toronto: 28.5% of shot attempts come from defensemen31st of 32

    • Colorado: 37.7% of shot attempts come from defensemen2nd of 32

      Colorado: 34.6% of shot attempts come from defensemen15th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Toronto: 31.2% of shots come from within 20 feet9th of 32

      Toronto: 35.8% of shots come from within 20 feet5th of 32

    • Colorado: 27.5% of shots come from within 20 feet31st of 32

      Colorado: 25.6% of shots come from within 20 feet27th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Toronto: 60.8 shot attempts allowed per 6028th of 32

      Toronto: 55.8 shot attempts allowed per 6018th of 32

    • Colorado: 53.7 shot attempts allowed per 609th of 32

      Colorado: 56.0 shot attempts allowed per 6019th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Toronto: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot against19th of 32

      Toronto: a 7.4% chance of scoring on the average shot against29th of 32

    • Colorado: a 5.9% chance of scoring on the average shot against2nd of 32

      Colorado: a 5.3% chance of scoring on the average shot against2nd of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Toronto: 0.43 defensive breakdowns per 6024th of 32

      Toronto: 0.78 defensive breakdowns per 6028th of 32

    • Colorado: 0.40 defensive breakdowns per 6014th of 32

      Colorado: 0.61 defensive breakdowns per 6022nd of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Toronto: +0.05 goals saved above expected per 6026th of 32

      Toronto: +0.99 goals saved above expected per 607th of 32

    • Colorado: +0.12 goals saved above expected per 6013th of 32

      Colorado: −0.50 goals saved above expected per 6024th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Toronto: 84.4 shots per 60, both teams combined5th of 32

      Toronto: 83.9 shots per 60, both teams combined9th of 32

    • Colorado: 89.0 shots per 60, both teams combined1st of 32

      Colorado: 92.1 shots per 60, both teams combined2nd of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Toronto: forecheck score 90 (100 is league average)24th of 32Toronto: 22.1 forecheck plays recorded per 6017th of 32

      Toronto: forecheck score 82 (100 is league average)25th of 32Toronto: 22.3 forecheck plays recorded per 6020th of 32

    • Colorado: forecheck score 92 (100 is league average)22nd of 32Colorado: 20.7 forecheck plays recorded per 6024th of 32

      Colorado: forecheck score 86 (100 is league average)22nd of 32Colorado: 21.2 forecheck plays recorded per 6023rd of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Toronto: hit score 85 (100 is league average)28th of 32Toronto: 25.6 hits recorded per 6021st of 32

      Toronto: hit score 72 (100 is league average)30th of 32Toronto: 24.7 hits recorded per 6026th of 32

    • Colorado: hit score 85 (100 is league average)27th of 32Colorado: 22.5 hits recorded per 6028th of 32

      Colorado: hit score 86 (100 is league average)24th of 32Colorado: 24.9 hits recorded per 6025th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Toronto: 40.8% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six25th of 32

      Toronto: 40.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six27th of 32

    • Colorado: 40.2% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six30th of 32

      Colorado: 41.2% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six21st of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Toronto: 7.8 expected goals per 60 on the power play10th of 32

      Toronto: 8.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play6th of 32

    • Colorado: 7.2 expected goals per 60 on the power play21st of 32

      Colorado: 6.7 expected goals per 60 on the power play18th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Toronto: 8.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded32nd of 32

      Toronto: 9.7 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded29th of 32

    • Colorado: 6.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded2nd of 32

      Colorado: 4.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded4th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Toronto: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded23rd of 32

      Toronto: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded31st of 32

    • Colorado: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded24th of 32

      Colorado: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded30th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Toronto: 0.23 more penalties taken than drawn per 6031st of 32

      Toronto: 0.00 more penalties drawn than taken per 6015th of 32

    • Colorado: 0.15 more penalties drawn than taken per 605th of 32

      Colorado: 0.50 more penalties drawn than taken per 608th 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

Colorado 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 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.

Toronto Maple Leafs

Colorado Avalanche

Worth knowing

  • Toronto J. Tavares is out, reported after he played in their last game. He is a top-six forward.
  • Toronto O. Ekman-Larsson has started killing penalties: on the ice for 28% of the team’s shorthanded time in 5 games, up from 6% last season.

Who Colorado is likely to send against whom

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

Toronto’s lines tonightL1 Roslovic · Matthews · MarchenkoL2 Sissons · Paul · McKennaL3 Blueger · Duhaime · GroulxL4 Tavares · Nylander · Cowan

Colorado forward lines against Toronto forward lines

  • L1Schwartz · Svechkov · HughesTOR L119%TOR L232%TOR L331%TOR L418%
  • L2Kadri · Lehkonen · MacKinnonTOR L144%TOR L218%TOR L326%TOR L412%
  • L3Nelson · Landeskog · NecasTOR L132%TOR L244%TOR L318%TOR L46%
  • L4Roy · Kelly · L'HeureuxTOR L132%TOR L224%TOR L326%TOR L417%

Colorado defense pairs against Toronto forward lines

  • P1Toews · MakarTOR L149%TOR L215%TOR L320%TOR L417%
  • P2Burns · MansonTOR L115%TOR L245%TOR L328%TOR L412%
  • P3Kulak · JuulsenTOR L126%TOR L235%TOR L329%TOR L411%

Based on 2 Colorado 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

Toronto power play against Colorado penalty kill

  • Toronto power play

    7.8 expected goals per 60 · 10th of 32

  • Colorado penalty kill

    6.6 expected goals allowed per 60 · 2nd of 32

Toronto power play

PP174% of the time

Creates 7.8 expected goals per 60

  • D. RaddyshQuarterback
  • A. Matthews
  • W. NylanderDistributor
  • K. Marchenko
  • J. TavaresTrigger

PP226% of the time

Creates 7.5 expected goals per 60

  • M. RiellyQuarterback
  • G. McKenna
  • J. Roslovic
  • N. Paul
  • E. CowanTrigger

 

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

Colorado 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

S. Bobrovsky52 starts · 1346 shots, this season and last

−15.1 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.970 694 shots
Medium-danger save %
.847 438 shots
High-danger save %
.650 214 shots
Shots faced per 60
25.3
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.28
Quality starts
56%

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 chancesS. BobrovskyA. StolarzM. BlackwoodS. Wedgewood

M. Blackwood39 starts · 1009 shots, this season and last

+5.4 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.975 527 shots
Medium-danger save %
.874 348 shots
High-danger save %
.694 134 shots
Shots faced per 60
25.9
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.39
Quality starts
67%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • S. Bobrovsky: −15.1 goals saved above expected in 52 starts
    • M. Blackwood: +5.4 goals saved above expected in 39 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • S. Bobrovsky: 25.3 shots faced per 60
    • M. Blackwood: 25.9 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • S. Bobrovsky: the average shot he faces has a 7.1% chance of going in
    • M. Blackwood: the average shot he faces has a 6.6% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • S. Bobrovsky: 0.28 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • M. Blackwood: 0.39 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • S. Bobrovsky: a typical wait of 81 seconds between shots
    • M. Blackwood: a typical wait of 77 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • S. Bobrovsky: a quality start 56% of the time
    • M. Blackwood: a quality start 67% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

M. Blackwood, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

S. Bobrovsky3 starts · 96 shots, this season

+3.4 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.977 44 shots
Medium-danger save %
.889 36 shots
High-danger save %
.750 16 shots
Shots faced per 60
31.5
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.66
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 chancesS. BobrovskyA. StolarzM. BlackwoodS. Wedgewood

M. Blackwood3 starts · 76 shots, this season

−1.5 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.953 43 shots
Medium-danger save %
.857 28 shots
High-danger save %
.600 5 shots
Shots faced per 60
25.4
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.33
Quality starts
33%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • S. Bobrovsky: +3.4 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
    • M. Blackwood: −1.5 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • S. Bobrovsky: 31.5 shots faced per 60
    • M. Blackwood: 25.4 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • S. Bobrovsky: the average shot he faces has a 8.6% chance of going in
    • M. Blackwood: the average shot he faces has a 5.4% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • S. Bobrovsky: 0.66 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • M. Blackwood: 0.33 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • S. Bobrovsky: a typical wait of 52 seconds between shots
    • M. Blackwood: a typical wait of 81 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • S. Bobrovsky: a quality start 67% of the time
    • M. Blackwood: a quality start 33% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

M. Blackwood, 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
TorontoColoradoLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play58.3%57.3%
  • Power play15.8%14.5%
  • Rebound7.5%8.8%
  • Empty net7.1%7.9%
  • Off a turnover6.4%6%
  • Goalie pulled1.5%2.7%
  • Shorthanded2.3%1.1%
  • Off a faceoff win1.1%1.6%

266 Toronto goals and 365 Colorado goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play78.6%69.6%
  • Power play21.4%17.4%
  • Rebound0%4.3%
  • Empty net0%0%
  • Off a turnover0%8.7%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

14 Toronto goals and 23 Colorado 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: Toronto Maple Leafs · Colorado Avalanche