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

COL

Colorado Avalanche

3-1-0

Has last change

Friday, October 16

9:00 PM ET · Ball Arena

The short version

Before the game

Strength against strength

The Avalanche are 3-1-0. The Penguins haven’t won in three. Colorado has controlled the play far better over recent games and has home ice. Pittsburgh’s way back in is a penalty kill that holds up.

The Avalanche are 3-1-0. The Penguins haven’t won in three. Colorado has controlled the play far better over recent games and has home ice. Pittsburgh can pull it off if their penalty kill holds up.

It’s strength against strength: the Penguins for chance quality, the Avalanche at preventing dangerous shots. The Avalanche shoot a lot, and the Penguins give up plenty.

Who to watch

  • Owns themBryan Rust has a point in six straight games against Colorado.
  • Owns themCale Makar has a point in five straight games against Pittsburgh.
  • Old teamSamuel Girard faces his old team, Colorado.
  • Slow startSidney Crosby is still looking for his first goal of the season.

  1. Strength against strength

    The Penguins are one of the league’s best for chance quality, and the Avalanche are one of the league’s best at preventing dangerous shots. We’ll side with the Penguins.

    The call The Penguins’ chances are more dangerous than the league average (a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot) against the Avalanche.

    Pittsburgh 3rd for chance quality (a 6.9% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Colorado 2nd for preventing dangerous shots

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

  2. Expect the Avalanche to fire from everywhere

    Few teams shoot like the Avalanche, and the Penguins are around the middle of the league at keeping shots away. It could be a long night in the Penguins’ end.

    The call The Avalanche take at least their usual 70.2 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Colorado 1st for shot volume (70.2 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5) · Pittsburgh 22nd for shot suppression

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

  3. Shots should fly both ways

    Pittsburgh plays some of the league’s fastest games, and so does Colorado. We think this one runs hotter than either team’s usual.

    The call The game runs at more than 89.0 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, faster than either team’s usual.

    Pace (shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams): Pittsburgh 3rd (84.9), Colorado 1st (89.0)

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

  4. In close against from distance

    The Penguins are the league’s best for shots from in close, at the close-range end; the Avalanche are one of 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 Avalanche.

    Shots from in close: Pittsburgh 1st, Colorado 31st

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

Pittsburgh PenguinsColorado AvalancheLeague 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 Pittsburgh, 4 for Colorado. 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

    • Colorado: 70.2 shot attempts per 601st of 32

      Colorado: 69.3 shot attempts per 604th 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

    • Colorado: a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot20th of 32

      Colorado: a 6.1% chance of scoring on the average shot21st 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

    • Colorado: 10.4% of chances come from rebounds8th of 32

      Colorado: 5.9% of chances come from rebounds26th 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

    • Colorado: 7.7% of chances come right after a turnover6th of 32

      Colorado: 10.6% of chances come right after a turnover11th 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

    • Colorado: 37.7% of shot attempts come from defensemen2nd of 32

      Colorado: 34.6% of shot attempts come from defensemen15th 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

    • Colorado: 27.5% of shots come from within 20 feet31st of 32

      Colorado: 25.6% of shots come from within 20 feet27th 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

    • Colorado: 53.7 shot attempts allowed per 609th of 32

      Colorado: 56.0 shot attempts allowed per 6019th 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

    • Colorado: a 5.9% chance of scoring on the average shot against2nd of 32

      Colorado: a 5.3% chance of scoring on the average shot against2nd of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Pittsburgh: 0.42 defensive breakdowns per 6020th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 0.76 defensive breakdowns per 6027th of 32

    • Colorado: 0.40 defensive breakdowns per 6014th of 32

      Colorado: 0.61 defensive breakdowns per 6022nd 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

    • Colorado: +0.12 goals saved above expected per 6013th of 32

      Colorado: −0.50 goals saved above expected per 6024th 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

    • Colorado: 89.0 shots per 60, both teams combined1st of 32

      Colorado: 92.1 shots per 60, both teams combined2nd 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

    • Colorado: forecheck score 92 (100 is league average)22nd of 32Colorado: 20.7 forecheck plays recorded per 6024th of 32

      Colorado: forecheck score 86 (100 is league average)22nd of 32Colorado: 21.2 forecheck plays recorded per 6023rd 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

    • Colorado: hit score 85 (100 is league average)27th of 32Colorado: 22.5 hits recorded per 6028th of 32

      Colorado: hit score 86 (100 is league average)24th of 32Colorado: 24.9 hits recorded per 6025th 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

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

      Colorado: 41.2% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six21st 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

    • Colorado: 7.2 expected goals per 60 on the power play21st of 32

      Colorado: 6.7 expected goals per 60 on the power play18th 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

    • Colorado: 6.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded2nd of 32

      Colorado: 4.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded4th 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

    • Colorado: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded24th of 32

      Colorado: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded30th 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

    • Colorado: 0.15 more penalties drawn than taken per 605th of 32

      Colorado: 0.50 more penalties drawn than taken per 608th 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

Colorado 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.

Pittsburgh Penguins

Colorado Avalanche

Who Colorado is likely to send against whom

Each strip shows how one Colorado 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

Colorado forward lines against Pittsburgh forward lines

  • L1Schwartz · Svechkov · HughesPIT L119%PIT L232%PIT L331%PIT L418%
  • L2Kadri · Lehkonen · MacKinnonPIT L144%PIT L218%PIT L326%PIT L412%
  • L3Nelson · Landeskog · NecasPIT L132%PIT L244%PIT L318%PIT L46%
  • L4Roy · Kelly · L'HeureuxPIT L132%PIT L224%PIT L326%PIT L417%

Colorado defense pairs against Pittsburgh forward lines

  • P1Toews · MakarPIT L149%PIT L215%PIT L320%PIT L417%
  • P2Burns · MansonPIT L115%PIT L245%PIT L328%PIT L412%
  • P3Kulak · JuulsenPIT L126%PIT L235%PIT L329%PIT L411%

Based on 2 Colorado 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

Pittsburgh power play against Colorado penalty kill

  • Pittsburgh power play

    7.4 expected goals per 60 · 15th of 32

  • Colorado penalty kill

    6.6 expected goals allowed per 60 · 2nd 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.

Colorado 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

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. MurashovM. BlackwoodS. Wedgewood

M. Blackwood39 starts · 1009 shots, this season and last

+5.4 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.975 527 shots
Medium-danger save %
.874 348 shots
High-danger save %
.694 134 shots
Shots faced per 60
25.9
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.39
Quality starts
67%
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
    • M. Blackwood: +5.4 goals saved above expected in 39 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • A. Silovs: 27 shots faced per 60
    • M. Blackwood: 25.9 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
    • M. Blackwood: the average shot he faces has a 6.6% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • A. Silovs: 0.42 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • M. Blackwood: 0.39 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • A. Silovs: a typical wait of 77 seconds between shots
    • M. Blackwood: a typical wait of 77 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • A. Silovs: a quality start 51% of the time
    • M. Blackwood: a quality start 67% of the time

A. Silovs, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

M. Blackwood, 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. MurashovM. BlackwoodS. Wedgewood

M. Blackwood3 starts · 76 shots, this season

−1.5 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.953 43 shots
Medium-danger save %
.857 28 shots
High-danger save %
.600 5 shots
Shots faced per 60
25.4
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.33
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
    • M. Blackwood: −1.5 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • A. Silovs: 24 shots faced per 60
    • M. Blackwood: 25.4 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
    • M. Blackwood: the average shot he faces has a 5.4% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • A. Silovs: 0.68 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • M. Blackwood: 0.33 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • A. Silovs: a typical wait of 78 seconds between shots
    • M. Blackwood: a typical wait of 81 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • A. Silovs: a quality start 33% of the time
    • M. Blackwood: 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)

M. Blackwood, 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
PittsburghColoradoLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play56.7%57.3%
  • Power play19.6%14.5%
  • Rebound5%8.8%
  • Empty net5.3%7.9%
  • Off a turnover6.5%6%
  • Goalie pulled3.4%2.7%
  • Shorthanded1.6%1.1%
  • Off a faceoff win1.9%1.6%

321 Pittsburgh goals and 365 Colorado goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play70%69.6%
  • Power play20%17.4%
  • Rebound0%4.3%
  • Empty net0%0%
  • Off a turnover5%8.7%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded5%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

20 Pittsburgh goals and 23 Colorado 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 · Colorado Avalanche