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

OTT3

Ottawa Senators

TOR2

Toronto Maple Leafs

Saturday, October 3

Final · Scotiabank Arena

The short version

What happened

The Senators beat the Maple Leafs

Thomas Chabot opened the scoring late in the first. The game was tied twice. Stephen Halliday scored the winner midway through the third.

The score was fair. Replay this game’s chances a hundred times and the Senators win about seven in ten.

What it means

  • The previewTwo of the preview’s three calls held.
  • RecordThe Senators 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 gave Ottawa a 71% chance, and Ottawa delivered.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+28 points74%
Who's been playing−3 points71%
Back-to-back0 points71%
Our chance for Ottawa the morning of the game71%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known70%

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 only a 29% chance, and it went the way we feared.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−28 points26%
Who's been playing+3 points29%
Back-to-back0 points29%
Our chance for Toronto the morning of the game29%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known30%

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

    Strength against strength

    The Senators are near the top of the league for chance quality, and the Maple Leafs are near the top of the league at preventing dangerous shots. Our lean: the Senators’ chance quality wins out.

    The call The Senators’ chances are more dangerous than the league average (a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot) against the Maple Leafs.

    Ottawa 6th for chance quality (a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Toronto 7th for preventing dangerous shots

    Held up

    On chance quality, Ottawa had 11.4% a shot. The league average is 6.3% a shot, and they came in at 6.6% a shot.

    6.6% a shot
    Coming in
    11.4% a shot
    In this game
    6.3% a shot
    League average

  2. Before the game

    Bobrovsky’s record against the Senators is a coincidence

    Since 2023-24, Bobrovsky has been a wall against the Senators, well above his usual. Fans love a pattern like this, but we checked three seasons of them and they predicted nothing. Expect the usual Bobrovsky.

    The call If Bobrovsky starts, his save percentage lands closer to his usual .900 than to his .935 against the Senators.

    9 starts against Ottawa: .935 save percentage · .900 against everyone else

    Held up

    S. Bobrovsky stopped 26 of 29 shots (.897), against his usual .900 and his .935 against this team before tonight.

    .900
    Coming in
    .897
    In this game

  3. Before the game

    The Senators lock it down; the Maple Leafs don’t

    The Senators are one of the league’s best for shot suppression, at the stingy end; the Maple Leafs are the league’s worst, at the porous end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Senators allow fewer 5-on-5 shot attempts per 60 than the Maple Leafs.

    Shot suppression: Ottawa 2nd, Toronto 32nd

    Didn’t happen

    On 5-on-5 shot attempts allowed per 60, Ottawa had 69.1 per 60 and Toronto 45.6 per 60. Coming in, Ottawa was at 51.7 per 60 and Toronto at 62.9 per 60.

    OTT 51.7 per 60 · TOR 62.9 per 60
    Coming in
    OTT 69.1 per 60 · TOR 45.6 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.

Ottawa earned this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Ottawa wins 71.

71%
Ottawa: 64 wins, plus half of the 14 ties
29%
Toronto: 21 wins, plus half of the 14 ties

Ottawa had 39 chances worth 4.4 expected goals. Toronto had 46 chances worth 3.1 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.

OttawaToronto
Goals32
Shots on goal2929
Expected goals4.63.1
Shot attempts at 5-on-53150
Power plays1 of 41 of 4

Swing

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

The biggest swings: W. Eklund +1.4, S. Halliday +1.2 and A. Matthews +1.0.

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
  • T. ChabotBig night

    A goal, 1 assist.

    Defense
    27:06
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    7
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play11.5typical 6.6
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.3typical 6.2
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.6typical 2.7
  • T. StützleDid his job
    Center
    22:51
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.9
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play12.2typical 7.1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill21.5typical 6.0
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won10 of 15typical 53%
  • J. SpenceDid his job
    Defense
    22:30
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    2.3–1.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-57.2typical 2.8
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.8typical 1.9
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.12typical 0.06
  • T. KlevenDid his job
    Defense
    21:43
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.8
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.4typical 5.8
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 2
  • S. PintoDid his job
    Center
    20:27
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.3
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play11.1typical 6.1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.9typical 6.2
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.4typical 2.0
  • M. AmadioMixed night

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 6, so it counts for more.

    Right wing
    19:13
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill13.9typical 5.8
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.3typical 2.0
Show 10 more Ottawa playersHide the other Ottawa players
  • N. MatinpaloOff night
    Defense
    18:48
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.7–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill11.7typical 6.9
  • C. GirouxBig night

    2 assists.

    Right wing
    18:17
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.5
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play11.4typical 6.4
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.3
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won10 of 12typical 62%
  • D. BathersonDid his job
    Right wing
    18:02
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.5–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play12.3typical 7.3
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.23typical 0.12
  • C. YakemchukOff night
    Defense
    17:50
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.03
  • D. CozensOff night
    Center
    16:17
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play12.2typical 7.0
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.08typical 0.10
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 2
  • W. EklundDid his job
    Left wing
    16:16
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.8–0.3
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play12.2typical 6.6
  • W. FoegeleOff night
    Left wing
    13:01
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.4
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.4typical 2.1
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 3
  • F. ZetterlundMixed night
    Left wing
    12:06
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 2
  • S. HallidayBig night

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 6, on top of doing his usual jobs.

    Center
    10:07
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.5–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play11.5typical 6.4
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 1
  • N. CousinsMixed night
    Center
    7:21
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.0–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-55.3typical 1.9
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 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: 40 ✓, 6 ≈, 25 ✕.

In net

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

  • L. UllmarkDid his job
    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    29
    Saves
    27
    Sv%
    .931
    xGA
    3.1
    GSAx
    +1.1
    Dangerous
    2/2
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.1typical +0.1
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance25 of 27typically saves 25 of 27
  • S. BobrovskyBig night

    26 saves on 29 shots, +1.6 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    58:50
    Shots
    29
    Saves
    26
    Sv%
    .897
    xGA
    4.6
    GSAx
    +1.6
    Dangerous
    4/5
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.6typical -0.1
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance4 of 5typically saves 3 of 5
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance22 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: Ottawa Senators · Toronto Maple Leafs