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

NYI1

New York Islanders

TOR2

Toronto Maple Leafs

Wednesday, September 30

Final · Scotiabank Arena

The short version

What happened

The Maple Leafs beat the Islanders

Colton Sissons opened the scoring midway through the first. Easton Cowan scored the winner midway through the first.

The chances were close to even, so this one could have gone either way.

What it means

  • The previewOne of the preview’s two calls held.
  • RecordThe Maple Leafs are now 1-1-0.

Our pre-game read

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

We gave NY Islanders a 66% chance, but Toronto had other ideas.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+16 points62%
Who's been playing−4 points58%
Back-to-back+8 points66%
Our chance for NY Islanders the morning of the game66%
Tonight's lineup−5 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known60%

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 a 34% chance, and Toronto proved us wrong.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−16 points38%
Who's been playing+4 points42%
Back-to-back−8 points34%
Our chance for Toronto the morning of the game34%
Tonight's lineup+5 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known40%

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, 0 partly did, and 1 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    The Islanders can’t afford to cough it up

    Almost nobody punishes turnovers like the Maple Leafs, and the Islanders give the puck away in bad spots.

    The call The Maple Leafs get at least their usual 8.6% of their 5-on-5 chances right after winning the puck.

    Toronto 1st for chances off turnovers (8.6% of their chances come right after winning the puck) · NY Islanders 31st for avoiding breakdowns

    Didn’t happen

    6.0% of Toronto’s 5-on-5 chances came right after winning the puck, against their usual 8.6%.

    8.6%
    Coming in
    6.0%
    In this game
    7.2%
    League average

  2. Before the game

    Expect a track meet

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

    The call The game runs at more than 84.1 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, faster than either team’s usual.

    Pace (shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams): NY Islanders 10th (82.9), Toronto 6th (84.1)

    Held up

    The game ran at 87.4 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined, against the faster team’s usual 84.1 and a league average of 82.0.

    84.1 per 60
    Coming in
    87.4 per 60
    In this game
    82.0 per 60
    League average

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, NY Islanders wins 53 and Toronto 47, close to a coin flip.

53%
NY Islanders: 44 wins, plus half of the 19 ties
47%
Toronto: 37 wins, plus half of the 19 ties

NY Islanders had 44 chances worth 2.6 expected goals. Toronto had 33 chances worth 2.4 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.

NY IslandersToronto
Goals12
Shots on goal2726
Expected goals2.62.5
Shot attempts at 5-on-54732
Power plays0 of 41 of 4

Swing

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

The biggest swings: E. Cowan +0.8, J. Roslovic +0.7 and N. Paul +0.6.

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. SchaeferMixed night
    Defense
    27:45
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.4
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.7typical 6.4
    • ≈Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.06typical 0.06
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 4
  • B. HorvatDid his job
    Center
    22:31
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.6
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.9typical 6.7
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.3typical 7.1
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 3
  • S. HolmstromDid his job
    Right wing
    20:17
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.6typical 7.1
  • A. PelechDid his job
    Defense
    19:51
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.9typical 7.5
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.1typical 2.4
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 3
  • K. PalmieriOff night
    Center
    18:35
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.4
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.2typical 7.0
  • M. MaccelliOff night
    Left wing
    17:39
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.3typical 6.6
Show 10 more NY Islanders playersHide the other NY Islanders players
  • T. DeAngeloDid his job
    Defense
    17:14
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.3typical 5.8
    • ≈Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.03typical 0.04
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 2
  • A. RomanovDid his job
    Defense
    17:09
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.1typical 6.5
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 2
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 1
  • R. PulockDid his job
    Defense
    16:27
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.7typical 7.9
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 1
  • C. RitchieOff night
    Center
    16:03
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.1
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.3typical 6.5
  • L. StanleyDid his job
    Defense
    15:06
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 2
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.02typical 0.03
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 1
  • B. SchennDid his job
    Center
    14:27
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.5typical 6.1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 2
    • –Faceoffs Better than mostToo little time to judge
  • J. PageauDid his job
    Center
    13:50
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.8typical 7.6
    • ≈Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won7 of 13typical 58%
  • E. HeinemanBig night

    A shorthanded goal.

    Left wing
    13:26
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 3
    • –Power play Relied onToo little time to judge
  • O. PalatDid his job
    Left wing
    10:06
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 1
  • C. CizikasMixed night
    Center
    9:29
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill17.7typical 7.0
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.6typical 2.3
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won4 of 9typical 54%
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 ✓, 6 ≈, 28 ✕.

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.

  • I. SorokinDid his job
    Goalie
    57:56
    Shots
    26
    Saves
    24
    Sv%
    .923
    xGA
    2.5
    GSAx
    +0.5
    Dangerous
    0/1
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.5typical +0.3
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance24 of 25typically saves 23 of 25
  • A. StolarzBig night

    26 saves on 27 shots, +1.6 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    58:22
    Shots
    27
    Saves
    26
    Sv%
    .963
    xGA
    2.6
    GSAx
    +1.6
    Dangerous
    2/3
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.6typical +0.4
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance2 of 3typically saves 2 of 3
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance24 of 24typically saves 22 of 24

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: New York Islanders · Toronto Maple Leafs