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

MTL5

Montréal Canadiens

PIT6

Pittsburgh Penguins

Saturday, October 3

Final in overtime · PPG Paints Arena

The short version

What happened

Novak wins it in overtime

Cole Caufield opened the scoring early in the first. Tommy Novak added two goals. Five different Penguins scored. The game was tied twice. Novak won it 1:33 into overtime.

The Canadiens had the better of the play. Replay the chances a hundred times and the Canadiens win about six in ten. By our Swing measure, Nick Suzuki had the best night of anyone, even in a loss.

What it means

  • The previewOne of the preview’s two calls held.
  • RecordThe Penguins are now 2-0-0.

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 (43% for Montréal), and it went Pittsburgh’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−2 points44%
Who's been playing−1 points43%
Back-to-back0 points43%
Our chance for Montréal the morning of the game43%
Tonight's lineup+2 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known45%

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 (57% for Pittsburgh), and Pittsburgh came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+2 points56%
Who's been playing+1 points57%
Back-to-back0 points57%
Our chance for Pittsburgh the morning of the game57%
Tonight's lineup−2 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known55%

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, 1 held up, 0 partly did, and 1 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    Quality over quantity for the Penguins

    The Penguins make their shots count, and the Canadiens are one of the league’s worst at preventing dangerous shots. Expect the Penguins to get some real chances.

    The call The Penguins’ average shot has at least their usual 6.7% chance of going in.

    Pittsburgh 5th for shot quality (a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Montréal 30th for preventing dangerous shots

    Didn’t happen

    Pittsburgh’s average shot had a 5.8% chance of going in, against their usual 6.7%.

    6.7% a shot
    Coming in
    5.8% a shot
    In this game
    6.3% a shot
    League average

  2. Before the game

    Special teams lean toward the Penguins

    The Canadiens’ penalty kill is near the bottom of the league, and the Penguins’ power play is near the top of the league. Discipline matters more than usual for the Canadiens tonight.

    The call The Penguins’ power play creates at least their usual 7.6 expected goals per 60.

    Pittsburgh 10th for power play (7.6 expected goals per 60) · Montréal 27th for penalty kill

    Held up

    Pittsburgh’s power play created 9.4 expected goals per 60 in 5:07 of 5-on-4 time, against their usual 7.6, and scored 2 goals.

    Called it, and then some. 2 power-play goals on 4 chances.

    7.6 per 60
    Coming in
    9.4 per 60
    In this game
    7.6 per 60
    League average

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.

Montréal usually wins this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Montréal wins 61. The goals went the other way.

61%
Montréal: 52 wins, plus half of the 17 ties
39%
Pittsburgh: 31 wins, plus half of the 17 ties

Montréal had 44 chances worth 3.3 expected goals. Pittsburgh had 33 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.

MontréalPittsburgh
Goals56
Shots on goal2530
Expected goals3.42.8
Shot attempts at 5-on-55134
Power plays0 of 22 of 4

Swing

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

The biggest swings: N. Suzuki +1.5, E. Karlsson +0.9 and S. Crosby +0.9.

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
  • L. HutsonBig night

    3 assists.

    Defense
    29:06
    G
    0
    A
    3
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.3–0.8
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 7.2
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.4typical 2.7
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.17typical 0.06
  • M. MathesonOff night
    Defense
    26:24
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–0.8
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.5typical 7.4
  • N. DobsonDid his job
    Defense
    23:04
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    1.3–0.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill14.8typical 6.3
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 2
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-59typical 3
  • C. CaufieldBig night

    2 goals.

    Right wing
    22:50
    G
    2
    A
    0
    +/−
    +3
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–0.9
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 7.6
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.28typical 0.18
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 4
  • N. Suzuki★ Huge night

    A goal, 3 assists, 78% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on.

    Center
    22:43
    G
    1
    A
    3
    +/−
    +4
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–0.3
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 7.6
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-54.5typical 2.6
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.3typical 2.4
  • J. SlafkovskýDid his job
    Left wing
    18:12
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 7.5
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
Show 11 more Montréal playersHide the other Montréal players
  • J. StrubleDid his job
    Defense
    16:09
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 2
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.9typical 2.4
  • I. DemidovMixed night

    A goal, 1 assist. A good scoresheet, but his usual jobs went quiet.

    Right wing
    16:03
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.1
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 7.5
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-50.5typical 2.6
  • A. NewhookDid his job
    Center
    15:43
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.0
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won7 of 11typical 51%
  • C. KreiderBig night

    A goal, 1 assist.

    Left wing
    14:57
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–1.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.3typical 6.6
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-55.1typical 2.8
  • J. EvansDid his job
    Center
    14:36
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill14.3typical 7.5
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won11 of 16typical 56%
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.8typical 2.3
  • A. XhekajDid his job
    Defense
    13:43
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 2
  • J. AndersonDid his job
    Right wing
    12:10
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.1
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.31typical 0.11
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 2
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • K. DachMixed night

    No points, and 85% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on, though he still did his usual jobs.

    Center
    11:40
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.9
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • Z. BolducDid his job
    Right wing
    11:31
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.3typical 6.2
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.8typical 2.3
  • P. DanaultDid his job
    Center
    11:24
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill12.0typical 7.2
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won8 of 13typical 54%
  • A. CarrierDid his job
    Defense
    8:32
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.0
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo 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: 42 ✓, 11 ≈, 19 ✕.

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.

  • J. DobesRough night

    24 saves on 30 shots, −3.2 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    59:04
    Shots
    30
    Saves
    24
    Sv%
    .800
    xGA
    2.8
    GSAx
    −3.2
    Dangerous
    2/5
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-3.2typical +0.8
    • ✕Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance2 of 5typically saves 4 of 5
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance22 of 25typically saves 24 of 25
  • A. SilovsOff night
    Goalie
    61:33
    Shots
    25
    Saves
    20
    Sv%
    .800
    xGA
    3.4
    GSAx
    −1.6
    Dangerous
    4/4
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-1.6typical +0.2
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance4 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance16 of 21typically saves 20 of 21

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: Montréal Canadiens · Pittsburgh Penguins