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

TBL

Tampa Bay Lightning

3-1-0

NYR

New York Rangers

4-2-0

Has last change

Tuesday, October 13

7:15 PM ET · Madison Square Garden

The short version

Before the game

Round two in the Rangers

The Rangers won the first meeting this season, 5-1 in the Rangers. The Rangers are 4-2-0. The Lightning have won three straight. Tampa Bay has controlled the play far better over recent games and the Rangers have home ice. The Rangers’ best way through is pouncing on loose pucks.

The Rangers won the first meeting this season, 5-1 in the Rangers. The Rangers are 4-2-0. The Lightning have won three straight. Tampa Bay has controlled the play far better over recent games and the Rangers have home ice. The Rangers’ way back in is pouncing on loose pucks.

It’s strength against strength: the Rangers for the power play, the Lightning at the penalty kill. At home, Mike Sullivan likes to pick matchups, so watch who goes out against the Lightning’s first line.

Who to watch

  • Owns themMika Zibanejad has a point in six straight games against Tampa Bay.
  • Haunts themBrayden Point has six goals in eight games against the Rangers since 2023-24.
  • Hot streakNikita Kucherov has a point in every game this season.
  • Old teamOliver Bjorkstrand faces his old team, Tampa Bay.

  1. The matchup inside the matchup

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

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

    NY Rangers 5th for the power play (8.4 expected goals per 60) · Tampa Bay 8th for the penalty kill

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 6 and 4 games this season

  2. The Rangers will send their checkers at Guentzel

    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 Lightning’s first line is Guentzel, Cirelli and Hagel.

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

  3. Volume against patience

    On shot volume, Tampa Bay is one of the league’s best and the Rangers is one of the league’s worst. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Lightning take more 5-on-5 shot attempts per 60 than the Rangers.

    Shot volume: Tampa Bay 4th, NY Rangers 28th

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 4 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 Tampa Bay and NY Rangers play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Tampa Bay LightningNew 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 4 and 6 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 4 games for Tampa Bay, 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

    • Tampa Bay: 64.9 shot attempts per 604th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 70.1 shot attempts per 603rd 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

    • Tampa Bay: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot8th of 32

      Tampa Bay: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot17th 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 shot4th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Tampa Bay: 10.4% of chances come from rebounds9th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 6.9% of chances come from rebounds23rd 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

    • Tampa Bay: 6.7% of chances come right after a turnover29th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 4.1% of chances come right after a turnover27th 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

    • Tampa Bay: 35.8% of shot attempts come from defensemen9th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 36.8% of shot attempts come from defensemen5th of 32

    • NY Rangers: 35.7% of shot attempts come from defensemen10th of 32

      NY Rangers: 34.8% of shot attempts come from defensemen13th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Tampa Bay: 31.5% of shots come from within 20 feet6th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 33.8% of shots come from within 20 feet10th 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

    • Tampa Bay: 51.5 shot attempts allowed per 605th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 50.6 shot attempts allowed per 609th 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

    • Tampa Bay: a 6.2% chance of scoring on the average shot against11th of 32

      Tampa Bay: a 6.0% chance of scoring on the average shot against9th 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 against23rd of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Tampa Bay: 0.41 defensive breakdowns per 6019th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

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

      NY Rangers: 0.42 defensive breakdowns per 6016th of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Tampa Bay: +0.19 goals saved above expected per 606th of 32

      Tampa Bay: +0.45 goals saved above expected per 6013th 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

    • Tampa Bay: 81.6 shots per 60, both teams combined19th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 84.1 shots per 60, both teams combined8th of 32

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

      NY Rangers: 70.0 shots per 60, both teams combined32nd of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Tampa Bay: forecheck score 94 (100 is league average)17th of 32Tampa Bay: 21.4 forecheck plays recorded per 6019th of 32

      Tampa Bay: forecheck score 92 (100 is league average)19th of 32Tampa Bay: 22.4 forecheck plays recorded per 6018th of 32

    • NY Rangers: forecheck score 120 (100 is league average)3rd of 32NY Rangers: 27.4 forecheck plays recorded per 604th of 32

      NY Rangers: forecheck score 119 (100 is league average)7th of 32NY Rangers: 29.1 forecheck plays recorded per 608th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Tampa Bay: hit score 89 (100 is league average)23rd of 32Tampa Bay: 25.0 hits recorded per 6023rd of 32

      Tampa Bay: hit score 84 (100 is league average)25th of 32Tampa Bay: 26.0 hits recorded per 6022nd of 32

    • NY Rangers: hit score 120 (100 is league average)3rd 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 609th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

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

      Tampa Bay: 39.8% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six30th 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 six20th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Tampa Bay: 7.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play20th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 6.0 expected goals per 60 on the power play24th 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 play4th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Tampa Bay: 7.2 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded8th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 6.2 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded9th 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

    • Tampa Bay: 0.9 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded17th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 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

    • Tampa Bay: 0.12 more penalties drawn than taken per 606th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 2.00 more penalties drawn than taken per 601st 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 6025th 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 (4 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.

Tampa Bay Lightning

New York Rangers

Worth knowing

  • Tampa Bay E. Lilleberg has been a scratch for the last 3 games. He is a top-four defenseman. M. Crozier has taken his spot beside C. D'Astous.
  • Tampa Bay J. Carlson is no longer killing penalties: 0% of the team’s shorthanded time in 4 games, down from 47% 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 Tampa Bay’s, named in each box.

Tampa Bay’s lines tonightL1 Guentzel · Cirelli · HagelL2 Kucherov · Point · GoncalvesL3 Girgensons · Holmberg · MikheyevL4 –

NY Rangers forward lines against Tampa Bay forward lines

  • L1Zibanejad · Lafrenière · PerreaultTBL L133%TBL L223%TBL L320%TBL L424%
  • L2Miller · Dorofeyev · KartyeTBL L142%TBL L226%TBL L323%TBL L49%
  • L3Tolvanen · Cuylle · LabaTBL L113%TBL L239%TBL L335%TBL L413%
  • L4Bjorkstrand · Chmelar · BeaudoinTBL L124%TBL L221%TBL L318%TBL L436%

NY Rangers defense pairs against Tampa Bay forward lines

  • P1Gavrikov · FoxTBL L135%TBL L224%TBL L326%TBL L415%
  • P2Pettersson · DurziTBL L125%TBL L234%TBL L326%TBL L414%
  • P3Schneider · SmitsTBL L127%TBL L222%TBL L323%TBL 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

Tampa Bay power play against NY Rangers penalty kill

  • Tampa Bay power play

    7.3 expected goals per 60 · 20th of 32

  • NY Rangers penalty kill

    7.7 expected goals allowed per 60 · 21st of 32

Tampa Bay power play

PP175% of the time

Creates 7.1 expected goals per 60

  • J. CarlsonQuarterback
  • N. KucherovDistributor
  • J. Guentzelboth unitsTrigger
  • B. Point
  • B. Hagel

PP225% of the time

Creates 6.2 expected goals per 60

  • C. D'AstousQuarterback
  • J. Guentzelboth unitsTrigger
  • C. Geekie
  • P. Holmberg
  • G. Goncalves

 

Where Tampa Bay’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

A. Vasilevskiy60 starts · 1545 shots, this season and last

+25.8 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.968 775 shots
Medium-danger save %
.886 534 shots
High-danger save %
.780 236 shots
Shots faced per 60
25.7
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.47
Quality starts
73%

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. VasilevskiyD. HildebyI. 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
    • A. Vasilevskiy: +25.8 goals saved above expected in 60 starts
    • I. Shesterkin: +27.9 goals saved above expected in 54 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 25.7 shots faced per 60
    • I. Shesterkin: 28 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • A. Vasilevskiy: the average shot he faces has a 7.0% 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
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 0.47 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
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a typical wait of 76 seconds between shots
    • I. Shesterkin: a typical wait of 72 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a quality start 73% of the time
    • I. Shesterkin: a quality start 67% of the time

A. Vasilevskiy, 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)

A. Vasilevskiy3 starts · 60 shots, this season

+0.7 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.933 30 shots
Medium-danger save %
.900 20 shots
High-danger save %
.800 10 shots
Shots faced per 60
20.5
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
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 chancesA. VasilevskiyD. HildebyI. 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
    • A. Vasilevskiy: +0.7 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
    • I. Shesterkin: +4.7 goals saved above expected in 4 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 20.5 shots faced per 60
    • I. Shesterkin: 24.4 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • A. Vasilevskiy: the average shot he faces has a 6.8% 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
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 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
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a typical wait of 96 seconds between shots
    • I. Shesterkin: a typical wait of 85 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a quality start 67% of the time
    • I. Shesterkin: a quality start 100% of the time

A. Vasilevskiy, 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
Tampa BayNY RangersLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play57.1%55%
  • Power play17.9%22.7%
  • Rebound7.1%6.8%
  • Empty net8%6.8%
  • Off a turnover4.8%3.2%
  • Goalie pulled1.9%2.4%
  • Shorthanded1.6%2%
  • Off a faceoff win1.6%1.2%

312 Tampa Bay goals and 251 NY Rangers goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play63.6%35.3%
  • Power play9.1%23.5%
  • Rebound0%5.9%
  • Empty net18.2%29.4%
  • Off a turnover0%5.9%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win9.1%0%

11 Tampa Bay 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: Tampa Bay Lightning · New York Rangers