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

WPG

Winnipeg Jets

3-1-1

CHI

Chicago Blackhawks

1-5-0

Has last change

Thursday, October 15

8:00 PM ET · United Center

The short version

Before the game

The Jets’ power play outclasses the Blackhawks’

The Jets come in at 3-1-1, the Blackhawks at 1-5-0. Winnipeg has had more of the chances over recent games and Chicago has home ice. Chicago can tip it if their penalty kill holds up.

The Jets come in at 3-1-1, the Blackhawks at 1-5-0. Winnipeg has had more of the chances over recent games and Chicago has home ice. Chicago can still swing it if their penalty kill holds up.

The Jets and the Blackhawks sit at opposite ends for power play.

Who to watch

  • Old teamDominic Toninato faces his old team, Winnipeg.
  • MissingFrank Nazar has missed the Blackhawks’ latest game.
  • MissingJosh Morrissey has missed the Jets’ latest game.
  • Still outConnor Bedard hasn’t played yet this season.

  1. The Jets’ power play outclasses the Blackhawks’

    The Jets are around the middle of the league for the power play, at the lethal end; the Blackhawks are one of the league’s worst, at the harmless end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Jets’ power play creates more per 60 than the Blackhawks’.

    Power play: Winnipeg 22nd, Chicago 31st

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

  2. Volume against patience

    The Jets are near the bottom of the league for shot volume, at the relentless end; the Blackhawks are one of the league’s worst, at the selective end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Jets take more 5-on-5 shot attempts per 60 than the Blackhawks.

    Shot volume: Winnipeg 23rd, Chicago 30th

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

Winnipeg JetsChicago 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 6 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 5 games for Winnipeg, 6 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

    • Winnipeg: 53.8 shot attempts per 6023rd of 32

      Winnipeg: 53.9 shot attempts per 6020th of 32

    • Chicago: 45.5 shot attempts per 6030th of 32

      Chicago: 42.8 shot attempts per 6029th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Winnipeg: a 5.8% chance of scoring on the average shot30th of 32

      Winnipeg: a 5.4% chance of scoring on the average shot29th of 32

    • Chicago: a 6.1% chance of scoring on the average shot24th of 32

      Chicago: a 5.8% chance of scoring on the average shot24th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Winnipeg: 10.2% of chances come from rebounds18th of 32

      Winnipeg: 10.0% of chances come from rebounds14th of 32

    • Chicago: 10.3% of chances come from rebounds14th of 32

      Chicago: 8.7% of chances come from rebounds19th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Winnipeg: 7.0% of chances come right after a turnover24th of 32

      Winnipeg: 11.5% of chances come right after a turnover10th of 32

    • Chicago: 7.6% of chances come right after a turnover10th of 32

      Chicago: 5.2% of chances come right after a turnover24th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Winnipeg: 35.3% of shot attempts come from defensemen12th of 32

      Winnipeg: 33.8% of shot attempts come from defensemen18th of 32

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

      Chicago: 31.8% of shot attempts come from defensemen22nd of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Winnipeg: 29.3% of shots come from within 20 feet27th of 32

      Winnipeg: 24.7% of shots come from within 20 feet30th of 32

    • Chicago: 26.7% of shots come from within 20 feet32nd of 32

      Chicago: 26.2% of shots come from within 20 feet27th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Winnipeg: 58.8 shot attempts allowed per 6025th of 32

      Winnipeg: 63.4 shot attempts allowed per 6026th of 32

    • Chicago: 61.5 shot attempts allowed per 6029th of 32

      Chicago: 64.1 shot attempts allowed per 6028th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Winnipeg: a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot against18th of 32

      Winnipeg: a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot against19th of 32

    • Chicago: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot against23rd of 32

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

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Winnipeg: 0.37 defensive breakdowns per 602nd of 32

      Winnipeg: 0.25 defensive breakdowns per 609th of 32

    • Chicago: 0.37 defensive breakdowns per 604th of 32

      Chicago: 0.40 defensive breakdowns per 6015th of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Winnipeg: +0.13 goals saved above expected per 608th of 32

      Winnipeg: +0.41 goals saved above expected per 6014th of 32

    • Chicago: +0.10 goals saved above expected per 6019th of 32

      Chicago: −0.22 goals saved above expected per 6022nd of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Winnipeg: 82.9 shots per 60, both teams combined11th of 32

      Winnipeg: 90.1 shots per 60, both teams combined4th of 32

    • Chicago: 81.9 shots per 60, both teams combined15th of 32

      Chicago: 81.3 shots per 60, both teams combined14th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Winnipeg: forecheck score 81 (100 is league average)31st of 32Winnipeg: 18.8 forecheck plays recorded per 6029th of 32

      Winnipeg: forecheck score 75 (100 is league average)29th of 32Winnipeg: 18.7 forecheck plays recorded per 6029th of 32

    • Chicago: forecheck score 82 (100 is league average)29th of 32Chicago: 18.5 forecheck plays recorded per 6030th of 32

      Chicago: forecheck score 83 (100 is league average)25th of 32Chicago: 19.8 forecheck plays recorded per 6026th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Winnipeg: hit score 88 (100 is league average)25th of 32Winnipeg: 24.0 hits recorded per 6025th of 32

      Winnipeg: hit score 77 (100 is league average)26th of 32Winnipeg: 22.6 hits recorded per 6028th of 32

    • Chicago: hit score 73 (100 is league average)31st of 32Chicago: 19.3 hits recorded per 6031st of 32

      Chicago: hit score 67 (100 is league average)31st of 32Chicago: 19.4 hits recorded per 6031st of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Winnipeg: 40.8% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six27th of 32

      Winnipeg: 41.0% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six24th of 32

    • Chicago: 41.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six21st of 32

      Chicago: 42.1% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six18th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Winnipeg: 7.2 expected goals per 60 on the power play22nd of 32

      Winnipeg: 7.9 expected goals per 60 on the power play11th of 32

    • Chicago: 6.0 expected goals per 60 on the power play31st of 32

      Chicago: 4.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play29th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Winnipeg: 7.3 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded11th of 32

      Winnipeg: 7.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded21st of 32

    • Chicago: 7.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded14th of 32

      Chicago: 6.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded12th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Winnipeg: 1.1 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded4th of 32

      Winnipeg: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded18th of 32

    • Chicago: 1.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded13th of 32

      Chicago: 2.3 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded2nd of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Winnipeg: 0.12 more penalties drawn than taken per 607th of 32

      Winnipeg: 0.40 more penalties drawn than taken per 609th of 32

    • Chicago: 0.07 more penalties taken than drawn per 6022nd of 32

      Chicago: 0.17 more penalties taken than drawn per 6017th 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 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.

Winnipeg Jets

Chicago Blackhawks

Worth knowing

  • Winnipeg J. Morrissey is day to day (upper body injury) and missed their last game. He is a top-four defenseman. D. Samberg has taken his spot beside D. DeMelo.
  • Chicago F. Nazar is suspended and missed their last game. He is a top-six forward.
  • Chicago C. Bedard has not played this season. 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 4 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 Winnipeg’s, named in each box.

Winnipeg’s lines tonightL1 Scheifele · Connor · PerfettiL2 Vilardi · Barron · BjörckL3 Lowry · Iafallo · RosenL4 Namestnikov · Koepke · Lambert

Chicago forward lines against Winnipeg forward lines

  • L1Bertuzzi · Kantserov · FrondellWPG L123%WPG L254%WPG L317%WPG L45%
  • L2Greenway · Smith · GreeneWPG L139%WPG L212%WPG L329%WPG L420%
  • L3Teravainen · Toninato · DonatoWPG L129%WPG L21%WPG L318%WPG L452%
  • L4Kane · Nazar · LardisWPG L130%WPG L229%WPG L321%WPG L420%

Chicago defense pairs against Winnipeg forward lines

  • P1Byram · LevshunovWPG L132%WPG L228%WPG L320%WPG L420%
  • P2Cole · VlasicWPG L145%WPG L233%WPG L37%WPG L414%
  • P3Kaiser · RinzelWPG L18%WPG L223%WPG L336%WPG L432%

Based on 2 Chicago 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

Winnipeg power play against Chicago penalty kill

  • Winnipeg power play

    7.2 expected goals per 60 · 22nd of 32

  • Chicago penalty kill

    7.4 expected goals allowed per 60 · 14th of 32

Winnipeg power play

PP149% of the time

Creates 6.4 expected goals per 60

  • N. PionkQuarterback
  • K. Connorboth unitsDistributor
  • M. Scheifeleboth units
  • G. Vilardiboth unitsTrigger
  • C. Perfettiboth unitsNet-front

PP239% of the time

Creates 9.4 expected goals per 60

  • J. MorrisseyQuarterback
  • K. Connorboth unitsDistributor
  • M. Scheifeleboth units
  • G. Vilardiboth unitsTrigger
  • C. Perfettiboth unitsNet-front

 

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

Chicago 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. Skinner51 starts · 1367 shots, this season and last

+13.4 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.975 640 shots
Medium-danger save %
.885 503 shots
High-danger save %
.661 224 shots
Shots faced per 60
26.4
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.35
Quality starts
53%

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. SkinnerC. StevensonS. KnightA. Soderblom

S. Knight59 starts · 1712 shots, this season and last

+14.4 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.980 848 shots
Medium-danger save %
.857 614 shots
High-danger save %
.740 250 shots
Shots faced per 60
29.1
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.37
Quality starts
49%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • S. Skinner: +13.4 goals saved above expected in 51 starts
    • S. Knight: +14.4 goals saved above expected in 59 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • S. Skinner: 26.4 shots faced per 60
    • S. Knight: 29.1 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • S. Skinner: the average shot he faces has a 7.3% 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
    • S. Skinner: 0.35 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • S. Knight: 0.37 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • S. Skinner: a typical wait of 74 seconds between shots
    • S. Knight: a typical wait of 70 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • S. Skinner: a quality start 53% of the time
    • S. Knight: a quality start 49% of the time

S. Skinner, 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)

S. Skinner3 starts · 100 shots, this season

+2.2 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.982 56 shots
Medium-danger save %
.912 34 shots
High-danger save %
.600 10 shots
Shots faced per 60
32.7
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 chancesS. SkinnerC. StevensonS. KnightA. Soderblom

S. Knight4 starts · 129 shots, this season

−1.1 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.983 60 shots
Medium-danger save %
.857 49 shots
High-danger save %
.650 20 shots
Shots faced per 60
33.4
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
25%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • S. Skinner: +2.2 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
    • S. Knight: −1.1 goals saved above expected in 4 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • S. Skinner: 32.7 shots faced per 60
    • S. Knight: 33.4 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • S. Skinner: the average shot he faces has a 6.1% 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
    • S. Skinner: 0 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
    • S. Skinner: a typical wait of 68 seconds between shots
    • S. Knight: a typical wait of 67 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • S. Skinner: a quality start 67% of the time
    • S. Knight: a quality start 25% of the time

S. Skinner, 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
WinnipegChicagoLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play56.8%59.3%
  • Power play19.1%18.1%
  • Rebound8.7%7.7%
  • Empty net5.4%5%
  • Off a turnover3.3%4.5%
  • Goalie pulled2.1%0.9%
  • Shorthanded2.1%2.3%
  • Off a faceoff win2.5%2.3%

241 Winnipeg goals and 221 Chicago goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play53.8%63.6%
  • Power play30.8%9.1%
  • Rebound15.4%0%
  • Empty net0%18.2%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%9.1%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

13 Winnipeg goals and 11 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: Winnipeg Jets · Chicago Blackhawks