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

MTL3

Montréal Canadiens

TOR2

Toronto Maple Leafs

Tuesday, September 29

Final · Scotiabank Arena

The short version

What happened

The Canadiens beat the Maple Leafs

William Nylander opened the scoring 48 seconds in. Alexandre Carrier scored the winner midway through the third.

The chances were close to even, so this one could have gone either way. By our Swing measure, Josh Anderson had the best night of anyone. The Canadiens tried a line they hadn’t used before: Cole Caufield, Chris Kreider and Nick Suzuki.

What it means

  • Keep an eye onWhether the Canadiens keep that line together in Pittsburgh on Saturday.
  • The previewBoth of the preview’s calls held.

Our pre-game read

The win chance our model worked out before the game, kept off the site until now.

We gave Montréal a 66% chance, and Montréal delivered.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+18 points64%
Who's been playing+2 points66%
Back-to-back0 points66%
Our chance for Montréal the morning of the game66%
Tonight's lineup−5 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known61%

Recent chances: how much better each team’s chances have been than their opponents’ lately, with the latest games counting most. Who’s been playing: whether the players who dressed last time were stronger or weaker than the ones behind those recent games, so a star who is out or back counts straight away. Back-to-back: playing for the second night in a row. Tonight’s lineup: any change in who dressed since the last game. Only earlier games went into it, and the preview hinted at it in words without showing the number.

We gave Toronto only a 34% chance, and it went the way we feared.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−18 points36%
Who's been playing−2 points34%
Back-to-back0 points34%
Our chance for Toronto the morning of the game34%
Tonight's lineup+5 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known39%

Recent chances: how much better each team’s chances have been than their opponents’ lately, with the latest games counting most. Who’s been playing: whether the players who dressed last time were stronger or weaker than the ones behind those recent games, so a star who is out or back counts straight away. Back-to-back: playing for the second night in a row. Tonight’s lineup: any change in who dressed since the last game. Only earlier games went into it, and the preview hinted at it in words without showing the number.

What the preview said, and what happened

Of the 2 calls the preview made, 2 held up, 0 partly did, and 0 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    Strength against strength

    The Canadiens are one of the league’s best for chance quality, and the Maple Leafs are near the top of the league at preventing dangerous shots. Our lean: the Canadiens’ chance quality wins out.

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

    Montréal 2nd for chance quality (a 6.8% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Toronto 8th for preventing dangerous shots

    Held up

    On chance quality, Montréal had 7.6% a shot. The league average is 6.3% a shot, and they came in at 6.8% a shot.

    6.8% a shot
    Coming in
    7.6% a shot
    In this game
    6.3% a shot
    League average

  2. Before the game

    The Canadiens lock it down; the Maple Leafs don’t

    The Canadiens are around the middle of the league for shot suppression, at the stingy end; the Maple Leafs are the league’s worst, at the porous end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Canadiens allow fewer 5-on-5 shot attempts per 60 than the Maple Leafs.

    Shot suppression: Montréal 17th, Toronto 32nd

    Held up

    On 5-on-5 shot attempts allowed per 60, Montréal had 48.0 per 60 and Toronto 53.9 per 60. Coming in, Montréal was at 57.3 per 60 and Toronto at 63.6 per 60.

    MTL 57.3 per 60 · TOR 63.6 per 60
    Coming in
    MTL 48.0 per 60 · TOR 53.9 per 60
    In this game

Each call is checked by a rule set before the game. Held up: the team reached their usual level. Partly: they fell short of their usual level but still beat the league average. When a call says one team will come out ahead, held up means they won by at least half their usual gap, and partly means they won by less. One game is a small sample, so a miss doesn’t mean the preview was wrong about the team.

Read the full preview as it stood at puck drop.

This season so far: 94 held up, 12 partly, 64 didn’t happen, out of 170 graded calls. See the track record.

Run it back

We replayed this game’s chances 100 times. Here is how often each team came out ahead.

Too close to call on chances

Played out 100 times with these chances, Montréal wins 50 and Toronto 51, close to a coin flip.

50%
Montréal: 39 wins, plus half of the 20 ties
51%
Toronto: 40 wins, plus half of the 20 ties

Montréal had 35 chances worth 2.6 expected goals. Toronto had 35 chances worth 2.7 expected goals.

How it works: every shot in regulation that was on target or missed the net goes in as often as our expected-goals model says it should, and the game is played out 100 times that way. A rebound scramble counts as one chance, and empty-net shots are left out. A replay tied after regulation counts as half a win each, since overtime and shootouts are close to coin flips.

It doesn’t know about goalies, finishing skill or passes before a shot. It also favours the team that was chasing, because a team with a lead tends to sit back. Over the last three seasons, teams it gave 80% or more won about two games in three.

What the preview didn’t see coming

The parts of this game furthest from how these teams usually play, biggest first.

Broke the pattern: a team did the opposite of their usual habit. Further than usual: a usual habit, taken much further. Closer than usual: a usual strength or weakness that mostly disappeared. Out of character: a usually average team, far from average. Each is measured against the teams’ numbers before the game.

The numbers

How the game went, beyond the score.

MontréalToronto
Goals32
Shots on goal2428
Expected goals2.72.7
Shot attempts at 5-on-54039
Power plays0 of 20 of 3

Swing

How far each player swung tonight’s result, for his team or against it.

The biggest swings: J. Anderson +2.0, K. Marchenko +1.2 and A. Carrier +1.1.

Showhighlighting

The number is roughly in goals: what he added to his team tonight, or cost it. Tap a player to see where it came from. The label beside it is his report card from “Did they do their job?” below; L1 to L4 and P1 to P3 are tonight’s lines and pairs.

How Swing is worked outHide how Swing is worked out

Scoresheet: each goal is shared 40% to the scorer, 35% to the first assist and 25% to the second, plus a quarter of the expected goals of his own shots. A penalty drawn adds 0.16 and one taken costs 0.16, what a power play is worth on average; each faceoff won or lost moves it by 0.006.

5-on-5 counts most: expected goals for minus against with him on, half compared with league average (adjusted for score and venue) and half compared with his own team when he was on the bench, plus a smaller amount for actual goals. A player on a losing team can score well if his line held its own. Special teams: power-play and penalty-kill time compared with a league-average unit.

Company kept (counted inside 5-on-5): from every player’s 5-on-5 impact over the two seasons before, a player out with strong linemates against weak opponents gives a little back, and the reverse earns a little. Goalies: goals saved above expected. Empty-net shots and shootouts are left out. One game is a small sample: this says who swung this result, not who is better.

Did they do their job?

What each player is relied on for or better than most at, and whether he delivered.

Show
  • M. MathesonDid his job
    Defense
    25:07
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.5–0.6
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.9typical 7.4
  • L. HutsonOff night
    Defense
    24:07
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.9
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.0typical 7.2
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.4typical 2.7
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.01typical 0.06
  • N. DobsonDid his job
    Defense
    21:56
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.8
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play5.0typical 6.7
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.3typical 6.4
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 2
  • A. CarrierMixed night

    A goal, 1 assist. A good scoresheet, but his usual jobs went quiet.

    Defense
    21:54
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–0.7
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.9typical 7.4
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 2
  • N. SuzukiRough night

    No points, and 82% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Center
    18:43
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.9
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.5typical 7.6
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-50.8typical 2.6
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.9typical 2.4
  • J. SlafkovskýDid his job
    Left wing
    17:53
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.3typical 7.5
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
Show 9 more Montréal playersHide the other Montréal players
  • C. CaufieldDid his job
    Right wing
    15:55
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.7
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.4typical 7.6
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.16typical 0.14
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 3
  • P. DanaultOff night
    Center
    15:37
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.1typical 7.3
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won5 of 10typical 54%
  • I. DemidovOff night
    Right wing
    15:11
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.4typical 7.5
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.3typical 2.6
  • J. EvansDid his job
    Center
    14:50
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.9typical 7.5
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won10 of 17typical 55%
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.3typical 2.4
  • C. KreiderOff night
    Left wing
    14:21
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.5typical 6.6
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-50.9typical 2.8
  • J. AndersonBig night

    A goal, 1 assist, 89% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on.

    Right wing
    12:53
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    1.7–0.2
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.5typical 6.8
  • A. XhekajOff night
    Defense
    12:20
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 3
  • Z. BolducDid his job

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 6, so it counts for more.

    Right wing
    11:04
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play5.0typical 6.2
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.6typical 2.3
    • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 2
  • J. StrubleDid his job
    Defense
    11:02
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 2
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.5typical 2.4
How the cards are gradedHide how the cards are graded

✓ a typical night for him in the ice time he got (the level he reaches in about half his games). ≈ beat an average player at his position, a typical power play or kill, or his own team with him off the ice. ✕ neither. Power-play and penalty-kill results count half, since five players share them.

Huge night: a hat trick or four or more points. Big night: two or more points, or a goal from a player who scores in fewer than one game in five on top of doing his jobs. Rough night: no points while the other team had 70% or more of the 5-on-5 chances with him on (xGF–xGA). Plus-minus never sets the level. A shorthanded goal counts as two points. Points never fully cover for jobs that went badly: with his jobs off, a huge night reads big and a big night reads mixed.

Judged only from games before this one; 5-on-5 rates adjusted for score and venue. One game is a small sample: even a strong player misses a typical night about half the time. Both teams: 36 ✓, 3 ≈, 30 ✕.

In net

Each goalie’s night: the goals he stopped beyond what the shots were worth, and the dangerous and routine saves.

  • J. DobesDid his job
    Goalie
    59:36
    Shots
    28
    Saves
    26
    Sv%
    .929
    xGA
    2.7
    GSAx
    +0.7
    Dangerous
    3/4
    • ≈Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.7typical +0.9
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance3 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance23 of 24typically saves 23 of 24
  • S. BobrovskyOff night
    Goalie
    58:45
    Shots
    24
    Saves
    21
    Sv%
    .875
    xGA
    2.7
    GSAx
    −0.3
    Dangerous
    2/4
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.3typical -0.1
    • ✕Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance2 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance19 of 20typically saves 19 of 20

Every goalie has the same three jobs, judged against his own earlier starts (✓) and an average goalie (≈). Huge night: a shutout on 25 or more shots, or 3+ goals saved above expected. Big night: any other shutout, or 1.5+. Rough night: 2+ goals worse than expected, or pulled early after three or more.

Empty-net shots are left out. Expected-goal models can’t see passes before a shot, so a goalie beaten by cross-ice passes looks worse here than he really was.

Team pages: Montréal Canadiens · Toronto Maple Leafs