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

MIN3

Minnesota Wild

NSH1

Nashville Predators

Thursday, October 1

Final · Bridgestone Arena

The short version

What happened

The Wild beat the Predators

Nick Foligno opened the scoring midway through the first. Blake Coleman scored the winner late in the first.

The score was fair. Replay this game’s chances a hundred times and the Wild win about four in five. By our Swing measure, Kirill Kaprizov had the best night of anyone.

What it means

  • The previewBoth of the preview’s calls held.
  • RecordThe Wild are now 1-0-0.

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 (52% for Minnesota), and Minnesota came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+11 points58%
Who's been playing−6 points52%
Back-to-back0 points52%
Our chance for Minnesota the morning of the game52%
Tonight's lineup+11 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known63%

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 (48% for Nashville), and it went Minnesota’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−11 points42%
Who's been playing+6 points48%
Back-to-back0 points48%
Our chance for Nashville the morning of the game48%
Tonight's lineup−11 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known37%

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

    Shots should fly both ways

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

    The call The game runs at more than 85.1 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, faster than either team’s usual.

    Pace (shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams): Minnesota 3rd (85.1), Nashville 7th (84.0)

    Held up

    The game ran at 87.1 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined, against the faster team’s usual 85.1 and a league average of 81.9.

    85.1 per 60
    Coming in
    87.1 per 60
    In this game
    81.9 per 60
    League average

  2. Before the game

    Sheltered against exposed

    On preventing dangerous shots, Minnesota is one of the league’s best and Nashville is around the middle of the league. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Wild prevent dangerous shots better than the Predators do.

    Preventing dangerous shots: Minnesota 3rd, Nashville 22nd

    Held up

    On how dangerous the average shot allowed was, Minnesota had 3.8% a shot and Nashville 5.6% a shot. Coming in, Minnesota was at 6.0% a shot and Nashville at 6.4% a shot.

    Called it, and then some. Nashville’s shots at 5-on-5 were less dangerous than usual: a 3.8% chance of scoring on the average shot, against their usual 6.2% (league average 6.3%). A team strays this far about once every 45 games.

    MIN 6.0% a shot · NSH 6.4% a shot
    Coming in
    MIN 3.8% a shot · NSH 5.6% 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.

Minnesota earned this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Minnesota wins 76.

76%
Minnesota: 67 wins, plus half of the 16 ties
24%
Nashville: 16 wins, plus half of the 16 ties

Minnesota had 47 chances worth 3.0 expected goals. Nashville had 33 chances worth 1.6 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.

MinnesotaNashville
Goals31
Shots on goal3020
Expected goals3.01.6
Shot attempts at 5-on-54533
Power plays1 of 40 of 4

Swing

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

The biggest swings: K. Kaprizov +0.8, N. Foligno +0.7 and M. McCarron +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
  • Q. HughesDid his job
    Defense
    27:30
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.6
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.2typical 7.6
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.0typical 2.7
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.30typical 0.06
  • O. MaattaDid his job
    Defense
    21:34
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.3typical 6.7
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.8typical 2.4
  • M. BoldyMixed night
    Left wing
    21:28
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.5
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.5typical 7.1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.7typical 6.3
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-58typical 4
  • K. KaprizovDid his job
    Left wing
    20:53
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.2
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.4typical 7.1
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-54.0typical 2.6
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 3
  • J. BrodinDid his job
    Defense
    20:28
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    5
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.0typical 6.4
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.9typical 2.2
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots5typical 2
  • J. Eriksson EkMixed night
    Center
    20:20
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.3
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.5typical 7.1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill10.3typical 6.9
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 3
Show 11 more Minnesota playersHide the other Minnesota players
  • J. SpurgeonDid his job
    Defense
    19:09
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.4typical 7.4
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.5typical 2.3
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots3typical 2
  • M. ShabanovDid his job
    Right wing
    15:09
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.1
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.5typical 5.9
  • Z. BogosianDid his job
    Defense
    14:32
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 1
  • B. ColemanDid his job
    Left wing
    13:44
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.8typical 6.5
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.16typical 0.10
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.4typical 2.2
  • M. McCarronDid his job
    Center
    13:24
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.3
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    6
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.2typical 7.0
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won8 of 15typical 52%
  • R. HartmanMixed night
    Right wing
    12:54
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play14.0typical 6.2
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 3
  • Y. TreninDid his job
    Center
    12:44
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.6typical 6.5
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 5
  • N. FolignoMixed night

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 9, so it counts for more.

    Left wing
    12:29
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.1
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.8typical 7.0
    • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 2
  • M. FolignoDid his job
    Left wing
    12:16
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.4typical 6.6
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.8typical 2.3
  • B. BrinkDid his job
    Right wing
    11:37
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play12.7typical 6.6
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.1typical 2.0
  • D. HuntOff night
    Defense
    10:06
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.1
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 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: 36 ✓, 9 ≈, 29 ✕.

In net

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

  • J. WallstedtDid his job
    Goalie
    59:14
    Shots
    20
    Saves
    19
    Sv%
    .950
    xGA
    1.6
    GSAx
    +0.6
    Dangerous
    1/1
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.6typical +0.5
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance18 of 19typically saves 18 of 19
  • J. SarosDid his job
    Goalie
    58:19
    Shots
    30
    Saves
    27
    Sv%
    .900
    xGA
    3.0
    GSAx
    +0.0
    Dangerous
    1/2
    • ≈Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.0typical +0.1
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance26 of 28typically saves 26 of 28

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: Minnesota Wild · Nashville Predators