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

SJS

San Jose Sharks

3-2-0

NSH

Nashville Predators

2-1-1

Has last change

Thursday, October 15

8:00 PM ET · Bridgestone Arena

The short version

Before the game

Bruisers against finesse

The Sharks come in at 3-2-0, the Predators at 2-1-1. The two have been about even at controlling the play lately and Nashville has home ice. San Jose can still swing it if they keep shots to a minimum.

The Sharks come in at 3-2-0, the Predators at 2-1-1. The two have been about even at controlling the play lately and Nashville has home ice. San Jose can tip it if they keep shots to a minimum.

The Sharks and the Predators sit at opposite ends for physicality.

Who to watch

  • Haunts themFilip Forsberg has nine goals in nine games against San Jose since 2023-24.
  • Haunts themMacklin Celebrini has five goals in six games against Nashville since 2023-24.
  • Hot streakSteven Stamkos has a point in every game this season.
  • Hot streakRoman Josi has a point in every game this season.

  1. Bruisers against finesse

    On physicality, San Jose is one of the league’s best and Nashville is one of the league’s worst. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Sharks hit more than the Predators in the close stretches of the game.

    Physicality: San Jose 2nd, Nashville 29th

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 5 and 4 games this season

  2. The Sharks’ defense joins the attack; the Predators’ stays home

    On shots from defensemen, San Jose is one of the league’s best and Nashville is near the bottom of the league. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Sharks’ defensemen take a bigger share of the team’s shot attempts than the Predators’.

    Shots from defensemen: San Jose 4th, Nashville 25th

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 5 and 4 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 San Jose and Nashville play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

San Jose SharksNashville PredatorsLeague 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 4 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 5 games for San Jose, 4 for Nashville. 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

    • San Jose: 46.2 shot attempts per 6029th of 32

      San Jose: 42.2 shot attempts per 6030th of 32

    • Nashville: 51.5 shot attempts per 6027th of 32

      Nashville: 46.5 shot attempts per 6028th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • San Jose: a 6.0% chance of scoring on the average shot28th of 32

      San Jose: a 4.8% chance of scoring on the average shot32nd of 32

    • Nashville: a 6.0% chance of scoring on the average shot29th of 32

      Nashville: a 5.7% chance of scoring on the average shot25th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • San Jose: 10.3% of chances come from rebounds12th of 32

      San Jose: 2.2% of chances come from rebounds31st of 32

    • Nashville: 10.4% of chances come from rebounds10th of 32

      Nashville: 13.3% of chances come from rebounds11th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • San Jose: 7.0% of chances come right after a turnover25th of 32

      San Jose: 10.1% of chances come right after a turnover13th of 32

    • Nashville: 7.3% of chances come right after a turnover18th of 32

      Nashville: 6.7% of chances come right after a turnover20th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • San Jose: 36.7% of shot attempts come from defensemen4th of 32

      San Jose: 41.2% of shot attempts come from defensemen1st of 32

    • Nashville: 32.3% of shot attempts come from defensemen25th of 32

      Nashville: 31.3% of shot attempts come from defensemen26th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • San Jose: 29.5% of shots come from within 20 feet24th of 32

      San Jose: 20.9% of shots come from within 20 feet32nd of 32

    • Nashville: 31.3% of shots come from within 20 feet7th of 32

      Nashville: 33.3% of shots come from within 20 feet13th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • San Jose: 58.6 shot attempts allowed per 6022nd of 32

      San Jose: 58.8 shot attempts allowed per 6024th of 32

    • Nashville: 60.4 shot attempts allowed per 6027th of 32

      Nashville: 66.0 shot attempts allowed per 6030th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • San Jose: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot against29th of 32

      San Jose: a 7.7% chance of scoring on the average shot against31st of 32

    • Nashville: a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot against13th of 32

      Nashville: a 5.7% chance of scoring on the average shot against6th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • San Jose: 0.43 defensive breakdowns per 6025th of 32

      San Jose: 0.73 defensive breakdowns per 6026th of 32

    • Nashville: 0.41 defensive breakdowns per 6016th of 32

      Nashville: 0.31 defensive breakdowns per 6012th of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • San Jose: +0.02 goals saved above expected per 6031st of 32

      San Jose: +0.39 goals saved above expected per 6015th of 32

    • Nashville: +0.09 goals saved above expected per 6018th of 32

      Nashville: +0.48 goals saved above expected per 6012th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • San Jose: 77.5 shots per 60, both teams combined29th of 32

      San Jose: 71.7 shots per 60, both teams combined29th of 32

    • Nashville: 84.3 shots per 60, both teams combined6th of 32

      Nashville: 85.4 shots per 60, both teams combined7th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • San Jose: forecheck score 110 (100 is league average)7th of 32San Jose: 24.2 forecheck plays recorded per 609th of 32

      San Jose: forecheck score 116 (100 is league average)9th of 32San Jose: 27.3 forecheck plays recorded per 6010th of 32

    • Nashville: forecheck score 87 (100 is league average)26th of 32Nashville: 20.6 forecheck plays recorded per 6024th of 32

      Nashville: forecheck score 75 (100 is league average)28th of 32Nashville: 19.6 forecheck plays recorded per 6027th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • San Jose: hit score 122 (100 is league average)2nd of 32San Jose: 30.3 hits recorded per 605th of 32

      San Jose: hit score 127 (100 is league average)3rd of 32San Jose: 34.8 hits recorded per 607th of 32

    • Nashville: hit score 84 (100 is league average)29th of 32Nashville: 22.8 hits recorded per 6027th of 32

      Nashville: hit score 74 (100 is league average)29th of 32Nashville: 22.6 hits recorded per 6027th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • San Jose: 41.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six18th of 32

      San Jose: 42.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six15th of 32

    • Nashville: 41.5% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six19th of 32

      Nashville: 41.0% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six23rd of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • San Jose: 7.0 expected goals per 60 on the power play25th of 32

      San Jose: 7.0 expected goals per 60 on the power play17th of 32

    • Nashville: 7.5 expected goals per 60 on the power play12th of 32

      Nashville: 8.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play9th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • San Jose: 8.1 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded26th of 32

      San Jose: 10.9 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded31st of 32

    • Nashville: 7.5 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded19th of 32

      Nashville: 8.5 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded24th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • San Jose: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded19th of 32

      San Jose: 0.9 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded14th of 32

    • Nashville: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded25th of 32

      Nashville: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded32nd of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • San Jose: 0.00 more penalties drawn than taken per 6017th of 32

      San Jose: 0.39 more penalties taken than drawn per 6022nd of 32

    • Nashville: 0.02 more penalties drawn than taken per 6015th of 32

      Nashville: 0.25 more penalties drawn than taken per 6014th 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

Nashville 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 4 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.

San Jose Sharks

Nashville Predators

Worth knowing

  • San Jose M. Celebrini returned in their last game after missing 2 games.
  • Nashville M. Wood has started killing penalties: on the ice for 39% of the team’s shorthanded time in 4 games, up from 0% last season.
  • Nashville N. Hague is no longer killing penalties: 5% of the team’s shorthanded time in 4 games, down from 42% last season.

Who Nashville is likely to send against whom

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

San Jose’s lines tonightL1 Wennberg · Sherwood · StenbergL2 Marchment · Smith · CelebriniL3 Toffoli · Graf · MisaL4 Goodrow · Ostapchuk · Chernyshov

Nashville forward lines against San Jose forward lines

  • L1Forsberg · Hoglander · WoodSJS L124%SJS L234%SJS L312%SJS L430%
  • L2Stamkos · O'Reilly · KerfootSJS L145%SJS L213%SJS L333%SJS L49%
  • L3Colton · Drury · EdstromSJS L144%SJS L26%SJS L333%SJS L418%
  • L4Marchessault · Bourque · SchaeferSJS L115%SJS L230%SJS L325%SJS L430%

Nashville defense pairs against San Jose forward lines

  • P1Skjei · PerbixSJS L141%SJS L211%SJS L327%SJS L421%
  • P2Josi · HagueSJS L129%SJS L224%SJS L330%SJS L417%
  • P3Wilsby · TrudeauSJS L118%SJS L237%SJS L37%SJS L438%

Based on 2 Nashville 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

San Jose power play against Nashville penalty kill

  • San Jose power play

    7.0 expected goals per 60 · 25th of 32

  • Nashville penalty kill

    7.5 expected goals allowed per 60 · 19th of 32

San Jose power play

PP168% of the time

Creates 7.6 expected goals per 60

  • L. CagnoniQuarterback
  • A. WennbergDistributor
  • W. Smith
  • I. ChernyshovNet-front
  • M. CelebriniTrigger

PP232% of the time

Creates 6.6 expected goals per 60

  • J. TroubaQuarterback
  • T. ToffoliTrigger
  • M. Marchment
  • M. MisaNet-front
  • K. Sherwood

 

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

Nashville penalty kill

Starts the kill

  • R. O'Reilly9 of 10 kills · 0:56 a kill
  • J. Drury8 of 10 kills · 1:02 a kill · takes the draw
  • M. Wood10 of 10 kills · 0:42 a kill · takes the draw
  • B. SkjeiD10 of 10 kills · 1:10 a kill
  • N. PerbixD9 of 10 kills · 1:05 a 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

Y. Askarov46 starts · 1449 shots, this season and last

−16.5 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.962 729 shots
Medium-danger save %
.855 519 shots
High-danger save %
.657 201 shots
Shots faced per 60
30.6
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.34
Quality starts
41%

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 chancesY. AskarovA. NedeljkovicJ. Saros

J. Saros60 starts · 1830 shots, this season and last

+3.7 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.975 914 shots
Medium-danger save %
.877 620 shots
High-danger save %
.686 296 shots
Shots faced per 60
29.9
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.36
Quality starts
52%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • Y. Askarov: −16.5 goals saved above expected in 46 starts
    • J. Saros: +3.7 goals saved above expected in 60 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • Y. Askarov: 30.6 shots faced per 60
    • J. Saros: 29.9 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • Y. Askarov: the average shot he faces has a 7.2% chance of going in
    • J. Saros: the average shot he faces has a 7.3% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • Y. Askarov: 0.34 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • J. Saros: 0.36 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • Y. Askarov: a typical wait of 65 seconds between shots
    • J. Saros: a typical wait of 71 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • Y. Askarov: a quality start 41% of the time
    • J. Saros: a quality start 52% of the time

Y. Askarov, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Saros, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

Y. Askarov4 starts · 107 shots, this season

0.0 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.941 51 shots
Medium-danger save %
.838 37 shots
High-danger save %
.684 19 shots
Shots faced per 60
26.4
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.49
Quality starts
0%

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 chancesY. AskarovA. NedeljkovicJ. Saros

J. Saros4 starts · 130 shots, this season

+1.9 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.986 71 shots
Medium-danger save %
.860 43 shots
High-danger save %
.750 16 shots
Shots faced per 60
32.1
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.25
Quality starts
75%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • Y. Askarov: 0.0 goals saved above expected in 4 starts
    • J. Saros: +1.9 goals saved above expected in 4 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • Y. Askarov: 26.4 shots faced per 60
    • J. Saros: 32.1 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • Y. Askarov: the average shot he faces has a 8.1% chance of going in
    • J. Saros: the average shot he faces has a 6.5% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • Y. Askarov: 0.49 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • J. Saros: 0.25 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • Y. Askarov: a typical wait of 83 seconds between shots
    • J. Saros: a typical wait of 75 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • Y. Askarov: a quality start 0% of the time
    • J. Saros: a quality start 75% of the time

Y. Askarov, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Saros, 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
San JoseNashvilleLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play54.6%50.8%
  • Power play21.4%23.2%
  • Rebound8.8%7.1%
  • Empty net4.6%7.1%
  • Off a turnover5.3%5.1%
  • Goalie pulled2.3%2.4%
  • Shorthanded1.5%2.8%
  • Off a faceoff win1.5%1.6%

262 San Jose goals and 254 Nashville goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play61.5%33.3%
  • Power play15.4%41.7%
  • Rebound0%8.3%
  • Empty net0%16.7%
  • Off a turnover15.4%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded7.7%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

13 San Jose goals and 12 Nashville 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: San Jose Sharks · Nashville Predators