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

VAN

Vancouver Canucks

2-4-0

TBL

Tampa Bay Lightning

3-1-0

Has last change

Saturday, October 17

4:00 PM ET · Benchmark International Arena

The short version

Before the game

A shadow job for Girgensons, Holmberg and Mikheyev

The Lightning have won three straight. The Canucks haven’t won in three. Tampa Bay has controlled the play far better over recent games and has home ice. Anything short of a win would be a surprise, though Vancouver can make a game of it if they pounce on loose pucks.

The Lightning have won three straight. The Canucks haven’t won in three. Tampa Bay has controlled the play far better over recent games and has home ice. Vancouver’s best hope is pouncing on loose pucks, plus a big night in goal.

At home, Jon Cooper likes to pick matchups, so watch who goes out against the Canucks’ first line. The Lightning shoot a lot, and the Canucks give up plenty.

Who to watch

  • Haunts themNikita Kucherov has six goals in six games against Vancouver since 2023-24.
  • Haunts themBrock Boeser has four goals in six games against Tampa Bay since 2023-24.

  1. A shadow job for Girgensons, Holmberg and Mikheyev

    At home, the Lightning keep sending Mikheyev’s line (Girgensons, Holmberg and Mikheyev) out against opponents’ first lines, far more often than chance would. That’s a checking assignment: Jon Cooper wants this group on the other team’s top line. Tonight the Canucks’ first line is DeBrusk, Pettersson and Lekkerimäki.

    The call The Lightning’s L3 (Girgensons, Holmberg and Mikheyev) spends at least 66% of its 5-on-5 time against the Canucks’ first line.

    At home: 66% of this group’s 5-on-5 time against first lines, about 37% with no line matching

    Who plays against whom · Tampa Bay home games this season · 3 games, 30 minutes for this group at 5-on-5

  2. The Canucks give up shots, and the Lightning take them

    Few teams shoot like the Lightning, and the Canucks are one of the league’s worst at keeping shots away. It could be a long night in the Canucks’ end.

    The call The Lightning take at least their usual 64.9 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Tampa Bay 4th for shot volume (64.9 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5) · Vancouver 30th for shot suppression

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 4 and 6 games this season

  3. The Canucks give up good looks, and the Lightning take them

    The Canucks have struggled to prevent dangerous shots, and the Lightning don’t waste many.

    The call The Lightning’s average shot has at least their usual 6.6% chance of going in.

    Tampa Bay 8th for shot quality (a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Vancouver 31st for preventing dangerous shots

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 4 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 Vancouver and Tampa Bay play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Vancouver CanucksTampa Bay LightningLeague 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 6 and 4 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 6 games for Vancouver, 4 for Tampa Bay. 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

    • Vancouver: 45.4 shot attempts per 6031st of 32

      Vancouver: 42.0 shot attempts per 6031st of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 64.9 shot attempts per 604th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 70.1 shot attempts per 603rd of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Vancouver: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot17th of 32

      Vancouver: a 6.9% chance of scoring on the average shot12th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot8th of 32

      Tampa Bay: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot17th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Vancouver: 10.7% of chances come from rebounds1st of 32

      Vancouver: 18.9% of chances come from rebounds4th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 10.4% of chances come from rebounds9th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 6.9% of chances come from rebounds23rd of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Vancouver: 7.0% of chances come right after a turnover23rd of 32

      Vancouver: 16.6% of chances come right after a turnover2nd of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 6.7% of chances come right after a turnover29th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 4.1% of chances come right after a turnover27th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Vancouver: 31.9% of shot attempts come from defensemen28th of 32

      Vancouver: 31.8% of shot attempts come from defensemen23rd of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 35.8% of shot attempts come from defensemen9th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 36.8% of shot attempts come from defensemen5th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Vancouver: 29.6% of shots come from within 20 feet23rd of 32

      Vancouver: 28.8% of shots come from within 20 feet25th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 31.5% of shots come from within 20 feet6th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 33.8% of shots come from within 20 feet10th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Vancouver: 62.2 shot attempts allowed per 6030th of 32

      Vancouver: 64.0 shot attempts allowed per 6027th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 51.5 shot attempts allowed per 605th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 50.6 shot attempts allowed per 609th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Vancouver: a 6.8% chance of scoring on the average shot against31st of 32

      Vancouver: a 7.0% chance of scoring on the average shot against27th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: a 6.2% chance of scoring on the average shot against11th of 32

      Tampa Bay: a 6.0% chance of scoring on the average shot against9th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Vancouver: 0.39 defensive breakdowns per 6011th of 32

      Vancouver: 0.84 defensive breakdowns per 6029th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 0.41 defensive breakdowns per 6019th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Vancouver: −0.06 goals saved above expected per 6032nd of 32

      Vancouver: −1.09 goals saved above expected per 6028th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: +0.19 goals saved above expected per 606th of 32

      Tampa Bay: +0.45 goals saved above expected per 6013th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Vancouver: 80.5 shots per 60, both teams combined22nd of 32

      Vancouver: 75.0 shots per 60, both teams combined25th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 81.6 shots per 60, both teams combined19th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 84.1 shots per 60, both teams combined8th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Vancouver: forecheck score 97 (100 is league average)16th of 32Vancouver: 22.3 forecheck plays recorded per 6016th of 32

      Vancouver: forecheck score 94 (100 is league average)17th of 32Vancouver: 23.2 forecheck plays recorded per 6016th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: forecheck score 94 (100 is league average)17th of 32Tampa Bay: 21.4 forecheck plays recorded per 6019th of 32

      Tampa Bay: forecheck score 92 (100 is league average)19th of 32Tampa Bay: 22.4 forecheck plays recorded per 6018th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Vancouver: hit score 99 (100 is league average)18th of 32Vancouver: 26.9 hits recorded per 6017th of 32

      Vancouver: hit score 96 (100 is league average)18th of 32Vancouver: 28.8 hits recorded per 6019th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: hit score 89 (100 is league average)23rd of 32Tampa Bay: 25.0 hits recorded per 6023rd of 32

      Tampa Bay: hit score 84 (100 is league average)25th of 32Tampa Bay: 26.0 hits recorded per 6022nd of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Vancouver: 43.6% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six7th of 32

      Vancouver: 44.1% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six8th of 32

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

      Tampa Bay: 39.8% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six30th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Vancouver: 7.0 expected goals per 60 on the power play26th of 32

      Vancouver: 4.5 expected goals per 60 on the power play28th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 7.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play20th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 6.0 expected goals per 60 on the power play24th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Vancouver: 8.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded31st of 32

      Vancouver: 11.9 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded32nd of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 7.2 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded8th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 6.2 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded9th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

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

      Vancouver: 1.2 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded11th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 0.9 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded17th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 1.3 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded8th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Vancouver: 0.02 more penalties taken than drawn per 6020th of 32

      Vancouver: 0.66 more penalties taken than drawn per 6026th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 0.12 more penalties drawn than taken per 606th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 2.00 more penalties drawn than taken per 601st 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

Tampa Bay 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 (6 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.

Vancouver Canucks

Tampa Bay Lightning

Worth knowing

  • Vancouver The forward lines keep changing. Even their four most-used trios over the last 6 games cover only 27% of their forwards’ 5-on-5 time, the second-lowest in the league (a typical team: 53%). The lines listed lean on their latest games, but expect new combinations tonight.
  • Vancouver M. Sasson has started killing penalties: on the ice for 32% of the team’s shorthanded time in 6 games, up from 4% last season.
  • Vancouver P. Cotter has started killing penalties: on the ice for 27% of the team’s shorthanded time in 6 games, up from 0% last season.
  • Vancouver A. Bains has started killing penalties: on the ice for 26% of the team’s shorthanded time in 6 games, up from 3% last season.
  • Tampa Bay E. Lilleberg has been a scratch for the last 3 games. He is a top-four defenseman. M. Crozier has taken his spot beside C. D'Astous.
  • Tampa Bay J. Carlson is no longer killing penalties: 0% of the team’s shorthanded time in 4 games, down from 47% last season.

Who Tampa Bay is likely to send against whom

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

Vancouver keeps changing their forward lines, so the four named here (from their latest games) may not be the ones they send out tonight.

Vancouver’s lines tonightL1 DeBrusk · Pettersson · LekkerimäkiL2 Karlsson · Cotter · RossiL3 Boeser · O'Connor · OhgrenL4 Gallagher · Bains · Sasson

Tampa Bay forward lines against Vancouver forward lines

  • L1Guentzel · Cirelli · HagelVAN L125%VAN L240%VAN L324%VAN L412%
  • L2Kucherov · Point · GoncalvesVAN L16%VAN L226%VAN L339%VAN L429%
  • L3Girgensons · Holmberg · MikheyevVAN L166%VAN L25%VAN L34%VAN L425%
  • L4VAN L1–VAN L2–VAN L3–VAN L4–

Tampa Bay defense pairs against Vancouver forward lines

  • P1Carlson · MoserVAN L112%VAN L228%VAN L337%VAN L424%
  • P2McDonagh · CernakVAN L154%VAN L210%VAN L313%VAN L423%
  • P3D'Astous · CrozierVAN L128%VAN L229%VAN L328%VAN L415%

Based on 3 Tampa Bay 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

Vancouver power play against Tampa Bay penalty kill

  • Vancouver power play

    7.0 expected goals per 60 · 26th of 32

  • Tampa Bay penalty kill

    7.2 expected goals allowed per 60 · 8th of 32

Vancouver power play

PP162% of the time

Creates 6.3 expected goals per 60

  • F. HronekQuarterback
  • B. BoeserDistributor
  • M. Rossi
  • E. Pettersson
  • J. DeBruskTrigger

PP237% of the time

Creates 5.7 expected goals per 60

  • Z. BuiumQuarterback
  • L. KarlssonTrigger
  • T. WillanderPoint
  • J. Lekkerimäki
  • L. OhgrenNet-front

 

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

Tampa Bay 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

K. Lankinen48 starts · 1392 shots, this season and last

−23.9 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.962 660 shots
Medium-danger save %
.858 507 shots
High-danger save %
.618 225 shots
Shots faced per 60
30
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.41
Quality starts
44%

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 chancesK. LankinenL. MeriläinenA. VasilevskiyD. Hildeby

A. Vasilevskiy60 starts · 1545 shots, this season and last

+25.8 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.968 775 shots
Medium-danger save %
.886 534 shots
High-danger save %
.780 236 shots
Shots faced per 60
25.7
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.47
Quality starts
73%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • K. Lankinen: −23.9 goals saved above expected in 48 starts
    • A. Vasilevskiy: +25.8 goals saved above expected in 60 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • K. Lankinen: 30 shots faced per 60
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 25.7 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • K. Lankinen: the average shot he faces has a 7.6% chance of going in
    • A. Vasilevskiy: the average shot he faces has a 7.0% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • K. Lankinen: 0.41 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 0.47 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • K. Lankinen: a typical wait of 66 seconds between shots
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a typical wait of 76 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • K. Lankinen: a quality start 44% of the time
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a quality start 73% of the time

K. Lankinen, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

K. Lankinen3 starts · 107 shots, this season

−8.3 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.905 42 shots
Medium-danger save %
.897 29 shots
High-danger save %
.556 36 shots
Shots faced per 60
33.3
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.31
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 chancesK. LankinenL. MeriläinenA. VasilevskiyD. Hildeby

A. Vasilevskiy3 starts · 60 shots, this season

+0.7 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.933 30 shots
Medium-danger save %
.900 20 shots
High-danger save %
.800 10 shots
Shots faced per 60
20.5
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
67%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • K. Lankinen: −8.3 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
    • A. Vasilevskiy: +0.7 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • K. Lankinen: 33.3 shots faced per 60
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 20.5 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • K. Lankinen: the average shot he faces has a 9.9% chance of going in
    • A. Vasilevskiy: the average shot he faces has a 6.8% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • K. Lankinen: 0.31 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • K. Lankinen: a typical wait of 62 seconds between shots
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a typical wait of 96 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • K. Lankinen: a quality start 33% of the time
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a quality start 67% of the time

K. Lankinen, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

A. Vasilevskiy, 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
VancouverTampa BayLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play51.3%57.1%
  • Power play23.7%17.9%
  • Rebound8.6%7.1%
  • Empty net3.9%8%
  • Off a turnover3.9%4.8%
  • Goalie pulled3%1.9%
  • Shorthanded3.4%1.6%
  • Off a faceoff win2.2%1.6%

232 Vancouver goals and 312 Tampa Bay goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play50%63.6%
  • Power play18.2%9.1%
  • Rebound18.2%0%
  • Empty net4.5%18.2%
  • Off a turnover4.5%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded4.5%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%9.1%

22 Vancouver goals and 11 Tampa Bay 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: Vancouver Canucks · Tampa Bay Lightning