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

CHI2

Chicago Blackhawks

VGK5

Vegas Golden Knights

Tuesday, September 29

Final · T-Mobile Arena

The short version

What happened

The Golden Knights beat the Blackhawks

Victor Olofsson opened the scoring midway through the first. Five different Golden Knights scored.

The score was fair. Replay this game’s chances a hundred times and the Golden Knights win about seven in ten. By our Swing measure, Noah Hanifin had the best night of anyone. The Blackhawks tried a line they hadn’t used before: Oliver Moore, Patrick Kane and Roman Kantserov.

What it means

  • Keep an eye onWhether the Blackhawks keep that line together in Utah on Thursday.
  • The previewOne of the preview’s two calls held.

Our pre-game read

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

We gave Chicago only a 23% chance, and it went the way we feared.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−19 points27%
Who's been playing−4 points23%
Back-to-back0 points23%
Our chance for Chicago the morning of the game23%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known24%

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 Vegas a 77% chance, and Vegas delivered.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+19 points73%
Who's been playing+4 points77%
Back-to-back0 points77%
Our chance for Vegas the morning of the game77%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known76%

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, 1 held up, 1 partly did, and 0 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    The Golden Knights’ power play outclasses the Blackhawks’

    On the power play, Vegas is one of the league’s best and Chicago is one of the league’s worst. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

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

    Power play: Vegas 2nd, Chicago 31st

    Held up

    On power-play expected goals per 60, Vegas had 7.8 per 60 and Chicago 3.7 per 60. Coming in, Vegas was at 8.7 per 60 and Chicago at 6.4 per 60.

    VGK 8.7 per 60 · CHI 6.4 per 60
    Coming in
    VGK 7.8 per 60 · CHI 3.7 per 60
    In this game

  2. Before the game

    The Golden Knights roll four lines; the Blackhawks lean on their top six

    The Golden Knights are one of the league’s best for depth, at the deep end; the Blackhawks are one of the league’s worst, at the top-heavy end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Golden Knights spread their forward ice time deeper down the lineup than the Blackhawks.

    Depth: Vegas 4th, Chicago 28th

    Partly

    On bottom-six share of forward ice time, Vegas had 43% and Chicago 43%. Coming in, Vegas was at 43% and Chicago at 40%.

    VGK 43% · CHI 40%
    Coming in
    VGK 43% · CHI 43%
    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: 92 held up, 12 partly, 62 didn’t happen, out of 166 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.

Vegas earned this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Vegas wins 74.

26%
Chicago: 19 wins, plus half of the 15 ties
74%
Vegas: 66 wins, plus half of the 15 ties

Chicago had 37 chances worth 1.9 expected goals. Vegas had 45 chances worth 3.3 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.

ChicagoVegas
Goals25
Shots on goal2637
Expected goals2.03.4
Shot attempts at 5-on-54253
Power plays0 of 21 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: N. Hanifin +0.8, B. McNabb +0.8 and J. Greenway +0.7.

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
  • B. ByramDid his job
    Defense
    25:08
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.2typical 5.9
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.11typical 0.07
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • P. KaneOff night
    Right wing
    21:36
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.9
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.3typical 8.0
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.7typical 2.4
  • W. KaiserDid his job
    Defense
    20:37
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–1.1
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.5typical 6.8
  • A. VlasicDid his job
    Defense
    20:01
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.8typical 6.3
  • S. RinzelDid his job
    Defense
    18:16
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–1.0
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 3
    • –Power play Relied onToo little time to judge
  • F. NazarOff night
    Center
    18:01
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.6
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play2.7typical 6.1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.9typical 6.3
    • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won8 of 17typical 48%
Show 8 more Chicago playersHide the other Chicago players
  • A. FrondellRough night

    No points, and 74% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Center
    17:40
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.9
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.1typical 6.8
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 3
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
  • T. BertuzziOff night
    Left wing
    16:51
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.3typical 6.6
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.13
  • C. SmithOff night
    Right wing
    15:16
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill11.7typical 6.6
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 3
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.2typical 2.2
  • R. GreeneMixed night
    Center
    14:43
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.5typical 6.7
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.2typical 2.3
    • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won7 of 17typical 43%
  • J. GreenwayBig night

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 12, on top of doing his usual jobs.

    Left wing
    14:08
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.6
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.9typical 6.2
  • R. DonatoRough night

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

    Center
    12:50
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.9
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • I. ColeDid his job
      Defense
      12:40
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      0
      xGF–xGA
      0.2–0.7
      Shots
      0
      Hits
      0
      Blocks
      1
      • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.5typical 6.8
      • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
    • N. LardisRough night

      No points, and 92% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

      Left wing
      11:44
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      −2
      xGF–xGA
      0.1–0.8
      Shots
      2
      Hits
      0
      Blocks
      1
      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: 32 ✓, 6 ≈, 24 ✕.

      Somewhere new

      Things they aren’t known for, far beyond their usual pace.

      A night this big would happen less than one game in fifty at his usual pace, and is at least twice what an average player at his position would manage.

      In net

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

      • S. KnightOff night
        Goalie
        59:47
        Shots
        36
        Saves
        32
        Sv%
        .889
        xGA
        3.4
        GSAx
        −0.6
        Dangerous
        1/3
        • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.6typical +0.4
        • ✕Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance1 of 3typically saves 2 of 3
        • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance31 of 33typically saves 31 of 33
      • C. HartMixed night
        Goalie
        59:57
        Shots
        26
        Saves
        24
        Sv%
        .923
        xGA
        2.0
        GSAx
        −0.0
        Dangerous
        1/1
        • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.0typical +0.2
        • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
        • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance23 of 25typically saves 23 of 25

      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: Chicago Blackhawks · Vegas Golden Knights