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

WSH1

Washington Capitals

TBL3

Tampa Bay Lightning

Saturday, October 3

Final · Benchmark International Arena

The short version

What happened

The Lightning beat the Capitals

Charle-Edouard D'Astous opened the scoring early in the first. Conor Geekie scored the winner late in the first.

The chances were close to even, so this one could have gone either way. The Lightning tried a line they hadn’t used before: Brayden Point, Gage Goncalves and Nikita Kucherov.

What it means

  • Keep an eye onWhether the Lightning keep that line together at home against Philadelphia on Monday.
  • The previewBoth of the preview’s calls held.

Our pre-game read

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

We gave Washington only a 30% chance, and it went the way we feared.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−6 points40%
Who's been playing−3 points37%
Back-to-back−7 points30%
Our chance for Washington the morning of the game30%
Tonight's lineup+1 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known31%

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 Tampa Bay a 70% chance, and Tampa Bay delivered.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+6 points60%
Who's been playing+3 points63%
Back-to-back+7 points70%
Our chance for Tampa Bay the morning of the game70%
Tonight's lineup−1 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known69%

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

    The Capitals give up good looks, and the Lightning take them

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

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

    Tampa Bay 7th for shot quality (a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Washington 24th for preventing dangerous shots

    Held up

    Tampa Bay’s average shot had a 6.7% chance of going in, against their usual 6.5%.

    6.5% a shot
    Coming in
    6.7% a shot
    In this game
    6.3% a shot
    League average

  2. Before the game

    The Lightning hound the puck; the Capitals sit back

    On forecheck pressure, Tampa Bay is near the top of the league and Washington is one of the league’s worst. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Lightning put more forecheck pressure on than the Capitals.

    Forecheck pressure: Tampa Bay 9th, Washington 30th

    Held up

    On forecheck score (arena-adjusted, 100 is league average), Tampa Bay had forecheck score 139 and Washington forecheck score 92. Coming in, Tampa Bay was at forecheck score 103 and Washington at forecheck score 85.

    TBL forecheck score 103 · WSH forecheck score 85
    Coming in
    TBL forecheck score 139 · WSH forecheck score 92
    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: 87 held up, 11 partly, 62 didn’t happen, out of 160 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.

Tampa Bay earned this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Tampa Bay wins 69.

31%
Washington: 23 wins, plus half of the 16 ties
69%
Tampa Bay: 61 wins, plus half of the 16 ties

Washington had 39 chances worth 2.4 expected goals. Tampa Bay had 47 chances worth 3.5 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.

WashingtonTampa Bay
Goals13
Shots on goal2130
Expected goals2.43.5
Shot attempts at 5-on-54046
Power plays0 of 20 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: B. Hagel +1.1, J. Guentzel +0.9 and C. Geekie +0.6.

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
  • J. ChychrunDid his job
    Defense
    27:11
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–1.1
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ≈Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.8typical 7.0
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.20typical 0.08
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-58typical 5
  • C. HutsonMixed night
    Defense
    21:03
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–1.0
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.9typical 6.6
    • ≈Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.04typical 0.06
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 3
  • P. DuboisMixed night
    Center
    18:34
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.9
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.2typical 6.2
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.2typical 2.5
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.0typical 2.5
  • M. FehérváryMixed night
    Defense
    18:11
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill11.3typical 7.3
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 2
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-50.6typical 2.4
  • D. StromeRough night

    No points, and 90% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Center
    18:02
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–1.0
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.6typical 7.2
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won5 of 12typical 58%
  • A. TuchOff night
    Right wing
    17:53
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.6
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.0typical 5.8
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.3typical 6.8
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.08typical 0.12
Show 12 more Washington playersHide the other Washington players
  • T. WilsonMixed night
    Right wing
    17:49
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.7
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.6typical 7.0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill10.4typical 7.0
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • T. LiljegrenDid his job
    Defense
    17:11
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.4typical 6.6
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots3typical 1
  • V. DesharnaisRough night

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

    Defense
    15:25
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–1.0
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.9typical 6.6
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-55.2typical 2.2
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 2
  • A. ProtasOff night
    Left wing
    15:21
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill14.2typical 6.6
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.4typical 2.6
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.10
  • B. JennerMixed night
    Center
    14:57
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.5
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.0typical 6.9
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won3 of 8typical 56%
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 1
  • J. KyrouOff night
    Right wing
    14:45
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.0typical 5.2
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.8typical 2.0
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.04typical 0.11
  • M. RoyRough night

    No points, and 74% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    14:22
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill10.4typical 7.4
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 1
  • R. LeonardRough night

    No points, and 72% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Right wing
    14:10
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.9
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.4typical 6.6
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 3
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.09typical 0.12
  • A. OvechkinOff night
    Left wing
    13:34
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.0–0.9
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play5.5typical 6.6
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 2
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.01typical 0.09
  • J. SourdifMixed night

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

    Center
    12:24
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.8typical 2.4
    • –Faceoffs Relied onToo little time to judge
  • A. BeauvillierDid his job
    Right wing
    11:37
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.6
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.16typical 0.10
  • I. ProtasDid his job
    Left wing
    9:55
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.1typical 6.7
    • ✓Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won5 of 10typical 47%
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: 44 ✓, 7 ≈, 34 ✕.

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.

  • C. LindgrenBig night

    27 saves on 29 shots, +1.5 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    57:36
    Shots
    29
    Saves
    27
    Sv%
    .931
    xGA
    3.5
    GSAx
    +1.5
    Dangerous
    5/5
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.5typical -0.3
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance5 of 5typically saves 3 of 5
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance22 of 24typically saves 22 of 24
  • A. VasilevskiyDid his job
    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    21
    Saves
    20
    Sv%
    .952
    xGA
    2.4
    GSAx
    +1.4
    Dangerous
    3/3
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.4typical +0.5
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance3 of 3typically saves 2 of 3
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance17 of 18typically saves 17 of 18

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: Washington Capitals · Tampa Bay Lightning