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

PIT

Pittsburgh Penguins

2-2-1

CHI

Chicago Blackhawks

1-4-0

Has last change

Tuesday, October 13

8:00 PM ET · United Center

The short version

Before the game

The Blackhawks’ goalie is in for some dangerous shots

The Blackhawks are 1-4-0. The Penguins haven’t won in three. Pittsburgh has controlled the play far better over recent games and Chicago has home ice. Chicago can pull it off if they pounce on loose pucks.

The Blackhawks are 1-4-0. The Penguins haven’t won in three. Pittsburgh has controlled the play far better over recent games and Chicago has home ice. Chicago can make it interesting if they pounce on loose pucks.

The Penguins make their shots count, and the Blackhawks allow dangerous ones. The Penguins and the Blackhawks sit at opposite ends for shots from in close.

Who to watch

  • Owns themBryan Rust has a point in five straight games against Chicago.
  • Slow startSidney Crosby is still looking for his first goal of the season.

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

    The Penguins make their shots count, and the Blackhawks are around the middle of the league at preventing dangerous shots. Expect the Penguins to get some real chances.

    The call The Penguins’ average shot has at least their usual 6.9% chance of going in.

    Pittsburgh 3rd for shot quality (a 6.9% 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

  2. The Penguins should pile up the shots

    The Penguins shoot a lot, and the Blackhawks are near the bottom of the league at keeping shots down. Look for a big shot total.

    The call The Penguins take at least their usual 58.8 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Pittsburgh 9th for shot volume (58.8 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

  3. The Penguins get in close; the Blackhawks shoot from distance

    The Penguins are the league’s best for shots from in close, at the close-range end; the Blackhawks are the league’s worst, at the long-range end. Expect that gap to show.

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

    Shots from in close: Pittsburgh 1st, Chicago 32nd

    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 Pittsburgh and Chicago play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Pittsburgh PenguinsChicago 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 Pittsburgh, 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

    • Pittsburgh: 58.8 shot attempts per 609th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 58.8 shot attempts per 609th of 32

    • Chicago: 45.8 shot attempts per 6030th of 32

      Chicago: 42.8 shot attempts per 6030th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • 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

    • 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

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

      Pittsburgh: 5.8% of chances come from rebounds27th 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

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

      Pittsburgh: 6.7% of chances come right after a turnover20th 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

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

      Pittsburgh: 36.1% of shot attempts come from defensemen9th 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

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

      Pittsburgh: 36.8% of shots come from within 20 feet3rd 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

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

      Pittsburgh: 62.2 shot attempts allowed per 6025th 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

    • 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

    • 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

    • Pittsburgh: 0.42 defensive breakdowns per 6020th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 0.76 defensive breakdowns per 6027th of 32

    • Chicago: 0.37 defensive breakdowns per 605th of 32

      Chicago: 0.48 defensive breakdowns per 6018th of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

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

      Pittsburgh: +0.38 goals saved above expected per 6016th 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

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

      Pittsburgh: 90.4 shots per 60, both teams combined3rd 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

    • 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

    • 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

    • 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

    • 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

    • 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

    • 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

    • 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

    • 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

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

      Pittsburgh: 6.8 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded16th 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

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

      Pittsburgh: 2.1 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded4th 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

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

      Pittsburgh: 0.39 more penalties drawn than taken per 6011th 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.

Pittsburgh Penguins

Chicago Blackhawks

Worth knowing

  • 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 Pittsburgh’s, named in each box.

Pittsburgh’s lines tonightL1 Malkin · Novak · ChinakhovL2 Crosby · Rust · RakellL3 Dewar · Lizotte · RobertsonL4 Lapierre · Koivunen · Kindel

Chicago forward lines against Pittsburgh forward lines

  • L1Greenway · Smith · GreenePIT L146%PIT L213%PIT L321%PIT L420%
  • L2Bertuzzi · Kantserov · FrondellPIT L141%PIT L239%PIT L318%PIT L41%
  • L3Kane · Nazar · LardisPIT L124%PIT L233%PIT L321%PIT L422%
  • L4Toninato · Donato · MoorePIT L18%PIT L230%PIT L320%PIT L442%

Chicago defense pairs against Pittsburgh forward lines

  • P1Cole · VlasicPIT L172%PIT L213%PIT L38%PIT L47%
  • P2Byram · LevshunovPIT L112%PIT L248%PIT L317%PIT L423%
  • P3Kaiser · RinzelPIT L14%PIT L231%PIT L339%PIT 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

Pittsburgh power play against Chicago penalty kill

  • Pittsburgh power play

    7.4 expected goals per 60 · 15th of 32

  • Chicago penalty kill

    7.4 expected goals allowed per 60 · 16th of 32

Pittsburgh power play

PP171% of the time

Creates 7.4 expected goals per 60

  • E. KarlssonQuarterback
  • S. CrosbyDistributor
  • R. RakellTrigger
  • T. Novak
  • B. Kindel

PP229% of the time

Creates 6.4 expected goals per 60

  • K. LetangQuarterback
  • E. Chinakhov
  • E. MalkinTrigger
  • H. Lapierre
  • A. Kuzmenko

 

Where Pittsburgh’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

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%

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. SilovsS. MurashovS. 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
    • A. Silovs: −4.8 goals saved above expected in 39 starts
    • S. Knight: +15.8 goals saved above expected in 58 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • A. Silovs: 27 shots faced per 60
    • S. Knight: 28.9 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • A. Silovs: the average shot he faces has a 7.1% 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
    • A. Silovs: 0.42 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
    • A. Silovs: a typical wait of 77 seconds between shots
    • S. Knight: a typical wait of 70 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • A. Silovs: a quality start 51% of the time
    • S. Knight: a quality start 50% of the time

A. Silovs, 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)

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%

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. SilovsS. MurashovS. 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
    • A. Silovs: −1.1 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
    • S. Knight: +0.3 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • A. Silovs: 24 shots faced per 60
    • S. Knight: 30.5 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • A. Silovs: the average shot he faces has a 7.1% 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
    • A. Silovs: 0.68 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
    • A. Silovs: a typical wait of 78 seconds between shots
    • S. Knight: a typical wait of 68 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • A. Silovs: a quality start 33% of the time
    • S. Knight: a quality start 33% of the time

A. Silovs, 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
PittsburghChicagoLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play56.7%59.1%
  • Power play19.6%18.2%
  • Rebound5%7.7%
  • Empty net5.3%5%
  • Off a turnover6.5%4.5%
  • Goalie pulled3.4%0.9%
  • Shorthanded1.6%2.3%
  • Off a faceoff win1.9%2.3%

321 Pittsburgh goals and 220 Chicago goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play70%60%
  • Power play20%10%
  • Rebound0%0%
  • Empty net0%20%
  • Off a turnover5%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%10%
  • Shorthanded5%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

20 Pittsburgh 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: Pittsburgh Penguins · Chicago Blackhawks