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

VAN

Vancouver Canucks

2-3-0

NYR

New York Rangers

4-2-0

Has last change

Sunday, October 11

6:00 PM ET · Madison Square Garden

The short version

Before the game

A shadow job for Miller, Dorofeyev and Kartye

The Canucks come in at 2-3-0, the Rangers at 4-2-0. The Rangers have controlled the play far better over recent games and have home ice. Anything short of a win would be a surprise, though Vancouver can make a game of it if they keep shots to a minimum.

The Canucks come in at 2-3-0, the Rangers at 4-2-0. The Rangers have controlled the play far better over recent games and have home ice. Vancouver’s best hope is keeping shots to a minimum, plus a big night in goal.

At home, Mike Sullivan likes to pick matchups, so watch who goes out against the Canucks’ first line. The Rangers’ power play has a soft target in the Canucks’ kill.

Who to watch

  • Hot streakElias Pettersson has a point in every game this season.
  • Old teamJ.T. Miller faces his old team, Vancouver.
  • Old teamVictor Mancini faces his old team, the Rangers.

  1. A shadow job for Miller, Dorofeyev and Kartye

    At home, the Rangers keep sending Dorofeyev’s line (Miller, Dorofeyev and Kartye) out against opponents’ first lines, far more often than chance would. That’s a checking assignment: Mike Sullivan wants this group on the other team’s top line. Tonight the Canucks’ first line is DeBrusk, Pettersson and Lekkerimäki.

    The call The Rangers’ L2 (Miller, Dorofeyev and Kartye) spends at least 42% of its 5-on-5 time against the Canucks’ first line.

    At home: 42% of this group’s 5-on-5 time against first lines, about 29% with no line matching

    Who plays against whom · NY Rangers home games this season · 3 games, 32 minutes for this group at 5-on-5

  2. Penalties could cost the Canucks

    The Rangers’ power play is one of the league’s best, and the Canucks’ kill is one of the league’s worst. Every trip to the box hurts the Canucks more than most.

    The call The Rangers’ power play creates at least their usual 8.4 expected goals per 60.

    NY Rangers 5th for power play (8.4 expected goals per 60) · Vancouver 31st for penalty kill

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 6 and 5 games this season

  3. In close against from distance

    On shots from in close, the Rangers is one of the league’s best and Vancouver is one of the league’s worst. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Rangers take a bigger share of their shots from within 20 feet than the Canucks.

    Shots from in close: NY Rangers 3rd, Vancouver 28th

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 5 and 6 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 Vancouver and NY Rangers play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Vancouver CanucksNew York RangersLeague 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 6 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 5 games for Vancouver, 6 for NY Rangers. 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

    • Vancouver: 45.7 shot attempts per 6031st of 32

      Vancouver: 41.8 shot attempts per 6031st of 32

    • NY Rangers: 51.0 shot attempts per 6028th of 32

      NY Rangers: 49.0 shot attempts per 6026th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Vancouver: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot17th of 32

      Vancouver: a 6.9% chance of scoring on the average shot10th of 32

    • NY Rangers: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot14th of 32

      NY Rangers: a 7.3% chance of scoring on the average shot5th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Vancouver: 10.8% of chances come from rebounds1st of 32

      Vancouver: 23.5% of chances come from rebounds2nd of 32

    • NY Rangers: 10.0% of chances come from rebounds24th of 32

      NY Rangers: 6.4% of chances come from rebounds25th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Vancouver: 6.9% of chances come right after a turnover26th of 32

      Vancouver: 16.9% of chances come right after a turnover2nd of 32

    • NY Rangers: 7.7% of chances come right after a turnover8th of 32

      NY Rangers: 10.3% of chances come right after a turnover12th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Vancouver: 31.7% of shot attempts come from defensemen29th of 32

      Vancouver: 31.4% of shot attempts come from defensemen25th of 32

    • NY Rangers: 35.7% of shot attempts come from defensemen11th of 32

      NY Rangers: 34.8% of shot attempts come from defensemen14th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Vancouver: 29.2% of shots come from within 20 feet28th of 32

      Vancouver: 27.0% of shots come from within 20 feet25th of 32

    • NY Rangers: 32.3% of shots come from within 20 feet3rd of 32

      NY Rangers: 37.9% of shots come from within 20 feet1st of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Vancouver: 61.8 shot attempts allowed per 6030th of 32

      Vancouver: 63.1 shot attempts allowed per 6026th of 32

    • NY Rangers: 55.9 shot attempts allowed per 6014th of 32

      NY Rangers: 53.1 shot attempts allowed per 6013th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Vancouver: a 6.8% chance of scoring on the average shot against31st of 32

      Vancouver: a 7.0% chance of scoring on the average shot against27th of 32

    • NY Rangers: a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot against14th of 32

      NY Rangers: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot against22nd of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Vancouver: 0.38 defensive breakdowns per 607th of 32

      Vancouver: 0.51 defensive breakdowns per 6020th of 32

    • NY Rangers: 0.42 defensive breakdowns per 6022nd of 32

      NY Rangers: 0.42 defensive breakdowns per 6016th of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Vancouver: −0.06 goals saved above expected per 6032nd of 32

      Vancouver: −1.29 goals saved above expected per 6027th of 32

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

      NY Rangers: +1.15 goals saved above expected per 604th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Vancouver: 80.3 shots per 60, both teams combined22nd of 32

      Vancouver: 73.2 shots per 60, both teams combined28th of 32

    • NY Rangers: 77.2 shots per 60, both teams combined31st of 32

      NY Rangers: 70.0 shots per 60, both teams combined31st of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Vancouver: forecheck score 100 (100 is league average)16th of 32Vancouver: 22.9 forecheck plays recorded per 6014th of 32

      Vancouver: forecheck score 98 (100 is league average)17th of 32Vancouver: 24.6 forecheck plays recorded per 6013th of 32

    • NY Rangers: forecheck score 121 (100 is league average)3rd of 32NY Rangers: 27.4 forecheck plays recorded per 604th of 32

      NY Rangers: forecheck score 118 (100 is league average)7th of 32NY Rangers: 29.1 forecheck plays recorded per 608th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Vancouver: hit score 98 (100 is league average)18th of 32Vancouver: 26.8 hits recorded per 6017th of 32

      Vancouver: hit score 95 (100 is league average)18th of 32Vancouver: 28.9 hits recorded per 6019th of 32

    • NY Rangers: hit score 121 (100 is league average)2nd of 32NY Rangers: 32.0 hits recorded per 603rd of 32

      NY Rangers: hit score 115 (100 is league average)9th of 32NY Rangers: 33.5 hits recorded per 608th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Vancouver: 43.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six7th of 32

      Vancouver: 43.9% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six9th of 32

    • NY Rangers: 41.5% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six20th of 32

      NY Rangers: 42.0% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six18th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Vancouver: 7.0 expected goals per 60 on the power play24th of 32

      Vancouver: 4.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play30th of 32

    • NY Rangers: 8.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play5th of 32

      NY Rangers: 9.7 expected goals per 60 on the power play5th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Vancouver: 8.5 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded31st of 32

      Vancouver: 11.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded32nd of 32

    • NY Rangers: 7.7 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded21st of 32

      NY Rangers: 5.5 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded7th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Vancouver: 1.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded10th of 32

      Vancouver: 1.3 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded8th of 32

    • NY Rangers: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded29th of 32

      NY Rangers: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded29th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Vancouver: 0.01 more penalties drawn than taken per 6018th of 32

      Vancouver: 0.40 more penalties taken than drawn per 6023rd of 32

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

      NY Rangers: 0.50 more penalties taken than drawn per 6026th 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

NY Rangers 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 6 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.

Vancouver Canucks

New York Rangers

Worth knowing

  • Vancouver The forward lines keep changing. Even their four most-used trios over the last 5 games cover only 27% of their forwards’ 5-on-5 time, the second-lowest in the league (a typical team: 51%). The lines listed lean on their latest games, but expect new combinations tonight.
  • Vancouver J. DeBrusk returned in their last game after missing 2 games.
  • Vancouver P. Cotter has started killing penalties: on the ice for 30% of the team’s shorthanded time in 5 games, up from 0% last season.
  • Vancouver M. Sasson has started killing penalties: on the ice for 32% of the team’s shorthanded time in 5 games, up from 4% last season.
  • Vancouver A. Bains has started killing penalties: on the ice for 25% of the team’s shorthanded time in 5 games, up from 3% last season.
  • NY Rangers S. Durzi has started killing penalties: on the ice for 44% of the team’s shorthanded time in 6 games, up from 7% last season.

Who NY Rangers is likely to send against whom

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

Vancouver keeps changing their forward lines, so the four named here (from their latest games) may not be the ones they send out tonight.

Vancouver’s lines tonightL1 DeBrusk · Pettersson · LekkerimäkiL2 Boeser · Cotter · RossiL3 Karlsson · Ohgren · SassonL4 O'Connor · Räty · Bains

NY Rangers forward lines against Vancouver forward lines

  • L1Zibanejad · Lafrenière · PerreaultVAN L133%VAN L223%VAN L320%VAN L424%
  • L2Miller · Dorofeyev · KartyeVAN L142%VAN L226%VAN L323%VAN L49%
  • L3Tolvanen · Cuylle · LabaVAN L113%VAN L239%VAN L335%VAN L413%
  • L4Bjorkstrand · Chmelar · BeaudoinVAN L124%VAN L221%VAN L318%VAN L436%

NY Rangers defense pairs against Vancouver forward lines

  • P1Gavrikov · FoxVAN L135%VAN L224%VAN L326%VAN L415%
  • P2Pettersson · DurziVAN L125%VAN L234%VAN L326%VAN L414%
  • P3Schneider · SmitsVAN L127%VAN L222%VAN L323%VAN L428%

Based on 3 NY Rangers 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

Vancouver power play against NY Rangers penalty kill

  • Vancouver power play

    7.0 expected goals per 60 · 24th of 32

  • NY Rangers penalty kill

    7.7 expected goals allowed per 60 · 21st of 32

Vancouver power play

PP161% of the time

Creates 6.0 expected goals per 60

  • F. HronekQuarterback
  • E. Pettersson
  • B. BoeserDistributor
  • M. Rossi
  • J. DeBruskTrigger

PP238% of the time

Creates 5.8 expected goals per 60

  • Z. BuiumQuarterback
  • T. WillanderPoint
  • L. KarlssonTrigger
  • J. Lekkerimäki
  • L. OhgrenNet-front

 

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

NY Rangers 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

K. Lankinen48 starts · 1389 shots, this season and last

−23.7 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.962 660 shots
Medium-danger save %
.858 507 shots
High-danger save %
.617 222 shots
Shots faced per 60
30
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.39
Quality starts
44%

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 chancesK. LankinenL. MeriläinenI. ShesterkinD. Garand

I. Shesterkin54 starts · 1534 shots, this season and last

+27.9 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.976 777 shots
Medium-danger save %
.890 543 shots
High-danger save %
.743 214 shots
Shots faced per 60
28
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.33
Quality starts
67%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • K. Lankinen: −23.7 goals saved above expected in 48 starts
    • I. Shesterkin: +27.9 goals saved above expected in 54 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • K. Lankinen: 30 shots faced per 60
    • I. Shesterkin: 28 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • K. Lankinen: the average shot he faces has a 7.6% chance of going in
    • I. Shesterkin: the average shot he faces has a 7.0% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • K. Lankinen: 0.39 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • I. Shesterkin: 0.33 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • K. Lankinen: a typical wait of 66 seconds between shots
    • I. Shesterkin: a typical wait of 72 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • K. Lankinen: a quality start 44% of the time
    • I. Shesterkin: a quality start 67% of the time

K. Lankinen, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

I. Shesterkin, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

K. Lankinen3 starts · 104 shots, this season

−8.1 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.905 42 shots
Medium-danger save %
.897 29 shots
High-danger save %
.545 33 shots
Shots faced per 60
33.3
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
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 chancesK. LankinenL. MeriläinenI. ShesterkinD. Garand

I. Shesterkin4 starts · 109 shots, this season

+4.7 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.978 45 shots
Medium-danger save %
.918 49 shots
High-danger save %
.800 15 shots
Shots faced per 60
24.4
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
100%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • K. Lankinen: −8.1 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
    • I. Shesterkin: +4.7 goals saved above expected in 4 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • K. Lankinen: 33.3 shots faced per 60
    • I. Shesterkin: 24.4 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • K. Lankinen: the average shot he faces has a 9.6% chance of going in
    • I. Shesterkin: the average shot he faces has a 7.2% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • K. Lankinen: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • I. Shesterkin: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • K. Lankinen: a typical wait of 60 seconds between shots
    • I. Shesterkin: a typical wait of 85 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • K. Lankinen: a quality start 33% of the time
    • I. Shesterkin: a quality start 100% of the time

K. Lankinen, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

I. Shesterkin, 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
VancouverNY RangersLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play51.5%55%
  • Power play23.4%22.7%
  • Rebound8.7%6.8%
  • Empty net3.9%6.8%
  • Off a turnover3.9%3.2%
  • Goalie pulled3%2.4%
  • Shorthanded3.5%2%
  • Off a faceoff win2.2%1.2%

231 Vancouver goals and 251 NY Rangers goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play52.4%35.3%
  • Power play14.3%23.5%
  • Rebound19%5.9%
  • Empty net4.8%29.4%
  • Off a turnover4.8%5.9%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded4.8%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

21 Vancouver goals and 17 NY Rangers 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: Vancouver Canucks · New York Rangers