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

EDM9

Edmonton Oilers

VAN7

Vancouver Canucks

Thursday, October 1

Final · Rogers Arena

The short version

What happened

The Oilers beat the Canucks

The Oilers had this one put away early. Vasily Podkolzin opened the scoring midway through the first. Leon Draisaitl added two goals. Eight different Oilers scored. Kasperi Kapanen scored the winner midway through the second.

The chances were close to even, so this one could have gone either way. By our Swing measure, Connor McDavid had the best night of anyone. The Oilers tried a line they hadn’t used before: McDavid, Draisaitl and Podkolzin, and it had a hand in five of their goals.

What it means

  • Keep an eye onWhether the Oilers keep that line together at home against Seattle on Saturday.
  • The previewTwo of the preview’s three calls held.

Our pre-game read

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

We gave Edmonton a 73% chance, and Edmonton delivered.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+22 points68%
Who's been playing+5 points73%
Back-to-back0 points73%
Our chance for Edmonton the morning of the game73%
Tonight's lineup−1 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known72%

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 Vancouver only a 27% chance, and it went the way we feared.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−22 points32%
Who's been playing−5 points27%
Back-to-back0 points27%
Our chance for Vancouver the morning of the game27%
Tonight's lineup+1 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known28%

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 3 calls the preview made, 2 held up, 0 partly did, and 1 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    Lankinen isn’t cursed against the Oilers

    Lankinen has been shaky against the Oilers since 2023-24, well below his usual. It looks like a pattern, but across three seasons a goalie’s record against one team told us nothing about the next meeting. Expect the usual Lankinen.

    The call If Lankinen starts, his save percentage lands closer to his usual .894 than to his .855 against the Oilers.

    6 starts against Edmonton: .855 save percentage · .894 against everyone else

    Can’t judge

    He didn’t start, so this call can’t be judged.

  2. Before the game

    Special teams lean toward the Oilers

    The Oilers’ power play is one of the league’s best, and the Canucks’ kill is near the bottom of the league. The Canucks need to stay out of the box.

    The call The Oilers’ power play creates at least their usual 9.6 expected goals per 60.

    Edmonton 1st for power play (9.6 expected goals per 60) · Vancouver 27th for penalty kill

    Held up

    Edmonton’s power play created 11.0 expected goals per 60 in 6:48 of 5-on-4 time, against their usual 9.6, and scored 2 goals.

    Called it, and then some. 2 power-play goals on 5 chances.

    9.6 per 60
    Coming in
    11.0 per 60
    In this game
    7.6 per 60
    League average

  3. Before the game

    The Oilers should get some good looks

    The Canucks have struggled to prevent dangerous shots, and the Oilers don’t waste many.

    The call The Oilers’ average shot has at least their usual 6.5% chance of going in.

    Edmonton 8th for shot quality (a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Vancouver 31st for preventing dangerous shots

    Didn’t happen

    Edmonton’s average shot had a 5.7% chance of going in, against their usual 6.5%.

    6.5% a shot
    Coming in
    5.7% a shot
    In this game
    6.3% a shot
    League average

  4. Before the game

    The Oilers’ defense joins the attack; the Canucks’ stays home

    On shots from defensemen, Edmonton is one of the league’s best and Vancouver is one of the league’s worst. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Oilers’ defensemen take a bigger share of the team’s shot attempts than the Canucks’.

    Shots from defensemen: Edmonton 4th, Vancouver 29th

    Held up

    On share of 5-on-5 shot attempts taken by defensemen, Edmonton had 39% and Vancouver 26%. Coming in, Edmonton was at 37% and Vancouver at 31%.

    EDM 37% · VAN 31%
    Coming in
    EDM 39% · VAN 26%
    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, Edmonton wins 59 and Vancouver 41, close to a coin flip.

59%
Edmonton: 50 wins, plus half of the 18 ties
41%
Vancouver: 32 wins, plus half of the 18 ties

Edmonton had 40 chances worth 3.3 expected goals. Vancouver had 29 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.

EdmontonVancouver
Goals97
Shots on goal3222
Expected goals3.32.8
Shot attempts at 5-on-53838
Power plays2 of 51 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: C. McDavid +2.4, E. Bouchard +1.9 and L. Draisaitl +1.8.

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
  • C. MurphyMixed night
    Defense
    24:47
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–1.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    6
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.7typical 6.6
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots6typical 2
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.6typical 2.2
  • E. BouchardBig night

    A goal, 2 assists.

    Defense
    24:21
    G
    1
    A
    2
    +/−
    +3
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.3
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play12.9typical 8.6
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.3typical 7.1
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.15typical 0.07
  • R. SheaBig night

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 14, on top of doing his usual jobs.

    Defense
    23:05
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +3
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.8typical 6.1
  • C. McDavid★ Huge night

    A shorthanded goal, 4 assists, 81% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on.

    Center
    22:03
    G
    1
    A
    4
    +/−
    +4
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.2
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play15.1typical 8.8
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.7typical 5.9
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.7typical 2.9
  • M. EkholmMixed night
    Defense
    20:42
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +3
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.7typical 7.2
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.2typical 2.9
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.05
  • L. DraisaitlBig night

    2 goals (one on the power play, one at even strength), 1 assist, 80% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on. A strong game, even though his usual jobs were quieter.

    Center
    20:19
    G
    2
    A
    1
    +/−
    +3
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.2
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play15.0typical 8.6
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.3typical 2.7
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won5 of 16typical 57%
Show 10 more Edmonton playersHide the other Edmonton players
  • K. KapanenBig night

    A shorthanded goal, 1 assist. A strong game, even though his usual jobs were quieter.

    Right wing
    18:48
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–1.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 3
  • V. PodkolzinBig night

    A power-play goal, 1 assist.

    Right wing
    18:04
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +3
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.4
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 4
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.7typical 2.4
  • A. FormentonMixed night
    Left wing
    16:15
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 3
  • M. JosephDid his job
    Right wing
    15:07
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.9
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    5
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.1typical 2.0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits5typical 3
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 1
  • J. WalmanDid his job
    Defense
    13:02
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 2
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.02
  • C. DachRough night

    No points, and 89% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Center
    12:46
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–1.0
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 3
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-55.7typical 2.3
  • M. JonesRough night

    No points, and 89% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Left wing
    11:41
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–1.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
  • T. FredericDid his job

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 12, so it counts for more.

    Center
    10:55
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
  • S. MukhamadullinRough night

    No points, and 81% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    10:01
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −4
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–1.1
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • J. SamanskiDid his job
      Center
      8:41
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      0
      xGF–xGA
      0.5–0.3
      Shots
      0
      Hits
      0
      Blocks
      0
      • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.8typical 2.2
    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: 26 ✓, 6 ≈, 25 ✕.

    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.

    • D. LeviRough night

      15 saves on 22 shots, −4.2 goals saved above expected.

      Goalie
      59:51
      Shots
      22
      Saves
      15
      Sv%
      .682
      xGA
      2.8
      GSAx
      −4.2
      Dangerous
      1/3
      • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-4.2typical +0.0
      • ✕Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance1 of 3typically saves 2 of 3
      • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance14 of 19typically saves 18 of 19
    • L. MeriläinenDid his job
      Goalie
      30:41
      Shots
      11
      Saves
      10
      Sv%
      .909
      xGA
      1.0
      GSAx
      −0.0
      Dangerous
      1/1
      • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.0typical -0.6
      • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
      • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance9 of 10typically saves 9 of 10
    • K. LankinenRough night

      13 saves on 21 shots, −5.6 goals saved above expected.

      Goalie
      28:23
      Shots
      21
      Saves
      13
      Sv%
      .619
      xGA
      2.4
      GSAx
      −5.6
      Dangerous
      2/6
      • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-5.6typical -0.2
      • ✕Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance2 of 6typically saves 4 of 6
      • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance11 of 15typically saves 14 of 15

    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: Edmonton Oilers · Vancouver Canucks