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

UTA

Utah Mammoth

3-2-0

Has last change

Tuesday, October 13

9:00 PM ET · Delta Center

The short version

Before the game

The Mammoth are going to test the Maple Leafs’ goalie early and often

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

The Mammoth shoot a lot, and the Maple Leafs give up plenty.

Who to watch

  • Haunts themDylan Guenther has four goals in six games against Toronto since 2023-24.
  • Slow startLogan Cooley is still looking for his first goal of the season.

  1. The Mammoth are going to test the Maple Leafs’ goalie early and often

    The Mammoth shoot a lot, and the Maple Leafs are one of the league’s worst at keeping shots down. Look for a big shot total.

    The call The Mammoth take at least their usual 66.6 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Utah 2nd for shot volume (66.6 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5) · Toronto 28th for shot suppression

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

  2. The Mammoth’s power play has a target

    The Mammoth’s power play is near the top of the league, and the Maple Leafs’ kill is the league’s worst. Every trip to the box hurts the Maple Leafs more than most.

    The call The Mammoth’s power play creates at least their usual 7.8 expected goals per 60.

    Utah 9th for power play (7.8 expected goals per 60) · Toronto 32nd for penalty kill

    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 Toronto and Utah play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Toronto Maple LeafsUtah MammothLeague 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 Toronto, 5 for Utah. 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

    • Utah: 66.6 shot attempts per 602nd of 32

      Utah: 71.2 shot attempts per 601st 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

    • Utah: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot5th of 32

      Utah: a 7.1% chance of scoring on the average shot8th 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

    • Utah: 10.1% of chances come from rebounds21st of 32

      Utah: 12.0% of chances come from rebounds12th 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

    • Utah: 7.5% of chances come right after a turnover11th of 32

      Utah: 12.1% of chances come right after a turnover7th 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

    • Utah: 34.3% of shot attempts come from defensemen18th of 32

      Utah: 38.0% of shot attempts come from defensemen3rd 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

    • Utah: 31.9% of shots come from within 20 feet4th of 32

      Utah: 36.5% of shots come from within 20 feet4th 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

    • Utah: 51.5 shot attempts allowed per 604th of 32

      Utah: 48.4 shot attempts allowed per 606th 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

    • Utah: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot against30th of 32

      Utah: a 7.4% chance of scoring on the average shot against30th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Toronto: 0.43 defensive breakdowns per 6024th of 32

      Toronto: 0.78 defensive breakdowns per 6028th of 32

    • Utah: 0.38 defensive breakdowns per 608th of 32

      Utah: 0.50 defensive breakdowns per 6019th 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

    • Utah: +0.11 goals saved above expected per 6015th of 32

      Utah: +0.03 goals saved above expected per 6018th 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

    • Utah: 81.5 shots per 60, both teams combined18th of 32

      Utah: 83.3 shots per 60, both teams combined10th 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

    • Utah: forecheck score 119 (100 is league average)4th of 32Utah: 26.4 forecheck plays recorded per 606th of 32

      Utah: forecheck score 135 (100 is league average)2nd of 32Utah: 32.0 forecheck plays recorded per 604th 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

    • Utah: hit score 112 (100 is league average)7th of 32Utah: 28.4 hits recorded per 6010th of 32

      Utah: hit score 124 (100 is league average)6th of 32Utah: 33.8 hits recorded per 607th 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

    • Utah: 44.5% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six2nd of 32

      Utah: 45.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six2nd 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

    • Utah: 7.8 expected goals per 60 on the power play9th of 32

      Utah: 9.8 expected goals per 60 on the power play4th 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

    • Utah: 7.3 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded12th of 32

      Utah: 5.0 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded6th 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

    • Utah: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded27th of 32

      Utah: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded16th 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

    • Utah: 0.01 more penalties taken than drawn per 6019th of 32

      Utah: 0.80 more penalties drawn than taken per 606th 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

Utah 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.

Toronto Maple Leafs

Utah Mammoth

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 Utah is likely to send against whom

Each strip shows how one Utah 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

Utah forward lines against Toronto forward lines

  • L1Trocheck · Schmaltz · KellerTOR L146%TOR L226%TOR L39%TOR L419%
  • L2Crouse · Hayton · McBainTOR L133%TOR L223%TOR L333%TOR L410%
  • L3Lee · Guenther · CooleyTOR L114%TOR L255%TOR L317%TOR L415%
  • L4Stenlund · Carcone · ButTOR L123%TOR L227%TOR L39%TOR L441%

Utah defense pairs against Toronto forward lines

  • P1Schmidt · MarinoTOR L125%TOR L234%TOR L316%TOR L425%
  • P2Weegar · SergachevTOR L133%TOR L227%TOR L323%TOR L417%
  • P3Peeke · SimashevTOR L139%TOR L231%TOR L38%TOR L421%

Based on 1 Utah 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

Toronto power play against Utah penalty kill

  • Toronto power play

    7.8 expected goals per 60 · 10th of 32

  • Utah penalty kill

    7.3 expected goals allowed per 60 · 12th 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.

Utah 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

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. StolarzK. VejmelkaS. Cossa

K. Vejmelka66 starts · 1710 shots, this season and last

+12.5 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.968 847 shots
Medium-danger save %
.891 599 shots
High-danger save %
.674 264 shots
Shots faced per 60
26.2
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.26
Quality starts
53%
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
    • K. Vejmelka: +12.5 goals saved above expected in 66 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • S. Bobrovsky: 25.3 shots faced per 60
    • K. Vejmelka: 26.2 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
    • K. Vejmelka: the average shot he faces has a 7.2% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • S. Bobrovsky: 0.28 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • K. Vejmelka: 0.26 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • S. Bobrovsky: a typical wait of 81 seconds between shots
    • K. Vejmelka: a typical wait of 74 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • S. Bobrovsky: a quality start 56% of the time
    • K. Vejmelka: a quality start 53% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

K. Vejmelka, 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. StolarzK. VejmelkaS. Cossa

K. Vejmelka4 starts · 83 shots, this season

+0.6 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.971 34 shots
Medium-danger save %
.824 34 shots
High-danger save %
.867 15 shots
Shots faced per 60
22.4
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.54
Quality starts
50%
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
    • K. Vejmelka: +0.6 goals saved above expected in 4 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • S. Bobrovsky: 31.5 shots faced per 60
    • K. Vejmelka: 22.4 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
    • K. Vejmelka: the average shot he faces has a 7.5% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • S. Bobrovsky: 0.66 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • K. Vejmelka: 0.54 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • S. Bobrovsky: a typical wait of 52 seconds between shots
    • K. Vejmelka: a typical wait of 116 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • S. Bobrovsky: a quality start 67% of the time
    • K. Vejmelka: a quality start 50% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

K. Vejmelka, 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
TorontoUtahLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play58.3%61.2%
  • Power play15.8%18.4%
  • Rebound7.5%4.9%
  • Empty net7.1%6.2%
  • Off a turnover6.4%6.6%
  • Goalie pulled1.5%0.3%
  • Shorthanded2.3%2%
  • Off a faceoff win1.1%0.3%

266 Toronto goals and 304 Utah goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play78.6%55.6%
  • Power play21.4%44.4%
  • Rebound0%0%
  • Empty net0%0%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

14 Toronto goals and 18 Utah 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 · Utah Mammoth