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

FLA3

Florida Panthers

SJS4

San Jose Sharks

Thursday, October 1

Final in overtime · SAP Center at San Jose

The short version

What happened

Askarov steals one

Mason Marchment opened the scoring late in the first. Will Smith added two goals. Luca Cagnoni won it in overtime.

The Panthers had the better of the play. Replay the chances a hundred times and the Panthers win about seven in ten. Yaroslav Askarov made the difference in net, stopping 23 of 26.

What it means

  • The previewTwo of the preview’s three calls held.
  • RecordThe Sharks 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 (56% for Florida), and it went San Jose’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances0 points47%
Who's been playing+10 points56%
Back-to-back0 points56%
Our chance for Florida the morning of the game56%
Tonight's lineup−5 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known51%

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 (44% for San Jose), and San Jose came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances0 points53%
Who's been playing−10 points44%
Back-to-back0 points44%
Our chance for San Jose the morning of the game44%
Tonight's lineup+5 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known49%

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

    This one’s going to leave marks

    The Panthers and the Sharks are both among the league’s heaviest hitters, even after adjusting for each arena’s scorer. Keep your head up.

    The call The two teams’ combined hit score reaches their usual 126.

    Hit score (100 is league average): Florida 142 (1st), San Jose 111 (7th)

    Held up

    The two teams’ combined hit score was 185, against their usual 126 (100 is league average, after adjusting for the arena’s scorer).

    Called it, and then some. Florida’s hit score in the close stretches of the game was 239, against their usual 142 (100 is league average, adjusted for the arena’s scorer). A team strays this far about once every 100 games.

    hit score 126
    Coming in
    hit score 185
    In this game
    hit score 100
    League average

  2. Before the game

    Bring a pillow

    Florida plays some of the league’s slowest games, and so does San Jose. We think this one is even quieter than either team’s usual.

    The call The game runs at fewer than 79.4 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, slower than either team’s usual.

    Pace (shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams): Florida 24th (79.9), San Jose 29th (79.4)

    Held up

    The game ran at 75.5 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined, against the slower team’s usual 79.4 and a league average of 81.5.

    79.4 per 60
    Coming in
    75.5 per 60
    In this game
    81.5 per 60
    League average

  3. Before the game

    The Panthers’ power play outclasses the Sharks’

    The Panthers are near the top of the league for the power play, at the lethal end; the Sharks are one of the league’s worst, at the harmless end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Panthers’ power play creates more per 60 than the Sharks’.

    Power play: Florida 8th, San Jose 28th

    Didn’t happen

    On power-play expected goals per 60, Florida had 13.0 per 60 and San Jose 17.2 per 60. Coming in, Florida was at 7.8 per 60 and San Jose at 7.0 per 60.

    FLA 7.8 per 60 · SJS 7.0 per 60
    Coming in
    FLA 13.0 per 60 · SJS 17.2 per 60
    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.

Florida usually wins this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Florida wins 73. The goals went the other way.

73%
Florida: 65 wins, plus half of the 15 ties
27%
San Jose: 20 wins, plus half of the 15 ties

Florida had 46 chances worth 4.0 expected goals. San Jose had 38 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.

FloridaSan Jose
Goals34
Shots on goal2632
Expected goals4.03.5
Shot attempts at 5-on-54438
Power plays1 of 51 of 4

Swing

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

The biggest swings: W. Smith +1.6, M. Celebrini +1.4 and E. Luostarinen +1.1.

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
  • S. JonesMixed night
    Defense
    27:43
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play8.8typical 7.1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.4typical 5.4
  • S. ReinhartDid his job
    Center
    23:33
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play8.9typical 7.2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill11.5typical 5.5
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.8typical 2.2
  • M. TkachukDid his job
    Left wing
    22:47
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play9.5typical 7.8
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.5typical 2.4
  • N. MikkolaOff night
    Defense
    22:42
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.0typical 5.3
  • A. EkbladMixed night
    Defense
    21:33
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play20.7typical 6.3
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill18.4typical 6.5
  • S. BennettDid his job
    Center
    20:49
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play23.6typical 7.2
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.25typical 0.16
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 4
Show 11 more Florida playersHide the other Florida players
  • A. LundellOff night
    Center
    20:43
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.7
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play8.5typical 6.8
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill23.9typical 6.1
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.3typical 2.2
  • B. TkachukOff night
    Left wing
    19:37
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.3
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    5
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play9.7typical 7.3
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-50.9typical 2.8
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.07typical 0.14
  • D. KulikovOff night
    Defense
    17:28
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill28.2typical 6.6
  • C. VerhaegheMixed night
    Center
    17:14
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play19.4typical 7.1
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 3
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.4typical 2.5
  • E. LuostarinenBig night

    2 goals (one on the power play, one at even strength). A strong game, even though his usual jobs were quieter.

    Center
    16:28
    G
    2
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.4
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill29.2typical 5.8
    • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 2
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.1typical 2.2
  • L. EllerDid his job
    Center
    14:57
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.1
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won8 of 15typical 51%
  • R. GudasDid his job
    Defense
    13:31
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    3
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill14.2typical 5.9
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 2
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots3typical 1
  • U. BalinskisDid his job
    Defense
    12:52
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 1
  • S. VilmanisDid his job
    Left wing
    12:19
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.7
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 2
  • A. BarkovOff night
    Center
    9:15
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.0–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.0typical 0.7
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-50.2typical 1.9
  • G. HathawayOff night
    Right wing
    6:03
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.0
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.1typical 6.1
    • –Hitting Better than mostToo little time to judge
    • –Blocking shots Better than mostToo 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: 33 ✓, 8 ≈, 29 ✕.

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. SchmidOff night
    Goalie
    63:14
    Shots
    32
    Saves
    28
    Sv%
    .875
    xGA
    3.5
    GSAx
    −0.5
    Dangerous
    2/5
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.5typical -0.0
    • ✕Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance2 of 5typically saves 3 of 5
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance26 of 27typically saves 25 of 27
  • Y. AskarovDid his job
    Goalie
    63:14
    Shots
    26
    Saves
    23
    Sv%
    .885
    xGA
    4.0
    GSAx
    +1.0
    Dangerous
    2/3
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.0typical -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% chance21 of 23typically saves 21 of 23

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: Florida Panthers · San Jose Sharks