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

TBL1

Tampa Bay Lightning

NYR5

New York Rangers

Thursday, October 1

Final · Madison Square Garden

The short version

What happened

The Rangers roll past the Lightning

Mika Zibanejad opened the scoring early in the first. Five different Rangers scored.

The chances were closer than the score.

What it means

  • The previewNone of the preview’s two calls held.
  • RecordThe Rangers 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 had this close to even (51% for Tampa Bay), and it went NY Rangers’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+12 points58%
Who's been playing−7 points51%
Back-to-back0 points51%
Our chance for Tampa Bay the morning of the game51%
Tonight's lineup+8 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known59%

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 had this close to even (49% for NY Rangers), and NY Rangers came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−12 points42%
Who's been playing+7 points49%
Back-to-back0 points49%
Our chance for NY Rangers the morning of the game49%
Tonight's lineup−8 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known41%

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, 0 held up, 0 partly did, and 2 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    Turnovers could swing this one

    The Rangers turn stolen pucks into chances, and the Lightning are near the bottom of the league at avoiding breakdowns. A sloppy pass or two could cost the Lightning.

    The call The Rangers get at least their usual 7.5% of their 5-on-5 chances right after winning the puck.

    NY Rangers 10th for chances off turnovers (7.5% of their chances come right after winning the puck) · Tampa Bay 24th for avoiding breakdowns

    Didn’t happen

    3.3% of NY Rangers’s 5-on-5 chances came right after winning the puck, against their usual 7.5%.

    7.5%
    Coming in
    3.3%
    In this game
    7.2%
    League average

  2. Before the game

    Good looks against hopeful ones

    The Lightning are near the top of the league for shot quality, at the dangerous end; the Rangers are near the bottom of the league, at the hopeful end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Lightning’s shots are more dangerous on average than the Rangers’.

    Shot quality: Tampa Bay 6th, NY Rangers 25th

    Didn’t happen

    On how dangerous the average shot was, Tampa Bay had 6.0% a shot and NY Rangers 6.6% a shot. Coming in, Tampa Bay was at 6.6% a shot and NY Rangers at 6.1% a shot.

    TBL 6.6% a shot · NYR 6.1% a shot
    Coming in
    TBL 6.0% a shot · NYR 6.6% a shot
    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, Tampa Bay wins 46 and NY Rangers 54, close to a coin flip.

46%
Tampa Bay: 36 wins, plus half of the 19 ties
54%
NY Rangers: 45 wins, plus half of the 19 ties

Tampa Bay had 34 chances worth 2.4 expected goals. NY Rangers had 28 chances worth 2.6 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.

Tampa BayNY Rangers
Goals15
Shots on goal2425
Expected goals2.42.6
Shot attempts at 5-on-54239
Power plays0 of 81 of 2

Swing

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

The biggest swings: M. Zibanejad +0.9, A. Smits +0.7 and G. Perreault +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
  • N. KucherovDid his job
    Right wing
    24:07
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.0typical 7.1
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-54.2typical 2.9
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 3
  • J. GuentzelOff night
    Center
    24:02
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.3
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.0typical 7.1
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.07typical 0.11
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.0typical 2.7
  • J. CarlsonOff night
    Defense
    23:41
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.6
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.2typical 7.0
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.4typical 2.8
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.01typical 0.04
  • B. HagelOff night
    Left wing
    23:40
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.1
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.1typical 6.8
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill14.4typical 6.5
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.03typical 0.15
  • B. PointOff night
    Center
    22:38
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.0typical 6.9
    • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won3 of 10typical 46%
  • A. CirelliOff night
    Center
    19:56
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.1
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill11.9typical 6.6
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.3typical 2.8
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.06typical 0.10
Show 11 more Tampa Bay playersHide the other Tampa Bay players
  • C. D'AstousMixed night
    Defense
    19:07
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.7typical 2.6
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.03
  • V. HedmanDid his job
    Defense
    17:45
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.9
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    4
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill12.1typical 5.9
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 2
    • –Power play Relied onToo little time to judge
  • E. CernakMixed night
    Defense
    16:00
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    5
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.4typical 6.9
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits5typical 1
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
  • R. McDonaghMixed night
    Defense
    15:46
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill10.4typical 6.8
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.9typical 2.2
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.01typical 0.03
  • P. HolmbergRough night

    No points, and 78% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Right wing
    14:59
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.8
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.4typical 2.0
  • J. MoserDid his job
    Defense
    14:54
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.18typical 0.04
  • C. GeekieDid his job
    Center
    12:32
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 2
  • G. GoncalvesOff night
    Center
    12:09
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.0typical 2.1
  • J. HarkinsDid his job
    Center
    10:55
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    5
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits5typical 3
  • J. VielMixed night
    Left wing
    8:49
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 2
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.2typical 2.8
  • Z. GirgensonsMixed night
    Center
    7:39
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.9typical 2.1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 1
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
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: 41 ✓, 3 ≈, 30 ✕.

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.

  • A. VasilevskiyOff night
    Goalie
    55:52
    Shots
    24
    Saves
    20
    Sv%
    .833
    xGA
    2.6
    GSAx
    −1.4
    Dangerous
    5/7
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-1.4typical +0.5
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance5 of 7typically saves 5 of 7
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance15 of 17typically saves 16 of 17
  • I. ShesterkinDid his job
    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    24
    Saves
    23
    Sv%
    .958
    xGA
    2.4
    GSAx
    +1.4
    Dangerous
    0/0
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.4typical +0.7
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance23 of 24typically saves 23 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: Tampa Bay Lightning · New York Rangers