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

UTA4

Utah Mammoth

CBJ1

Columbus Blue Jackets

Saturday, October 3

Final · Nationwide Arena

The short version

What happened

The Mammoth beat the Blue Jackets

Mikhail Sergachev opened the scoring midway through the first. Nick Schmaltz added two goals.

The chances were closer than the score.

What it means

  • The previewNone of the preview’s two calls held.
  • RecordThe Mammoth 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 (51% for Utah), and Utah came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+3 points49%
Who's been playing+1 points51%
Back-to-back0 points51%
Our chance for Utah the morning of the game51%
Tonight's lineup0 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 (49% for Columbus), and it went Utah’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−3 points51%
Who's been playing−1 points49%
Back-to-back0 points49%
Our chance for Columbus the morning of the game49%
Tonight's lineup0 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 2 calls the preview made, 0 held up, 0 partly did, and 2 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    The Blue Jackets’ defense joins the attack; the Mammoth’s stays home

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

    The call The Blue Jackets’ defensemen take a bigger share of the team’s shot attempts than the Mammoth’s.

    Shots from defensemen: Columbus 5th, Utah 32nd

    Didn’t happen

    On share of 5-on-5 shot attempts taken by defensemen, Columbus had 30% and Utah 46%. Coming in, Columbus was at 37% and Utah at 30%.

    CBJ 37% · UTA 30%
    Coming in
    CBJ 30% · UTA 46%
    In this game

  2. Before the game

    The Mammoth get in close; the Blue Jackets shoot from distance

    The Mammoth are near the top of the league for shots from in close, at the close-range end; the Blue Jackets are near the bottom of the league, at the long-range end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Mammoth take a bigger share of their shots from within 20 feet than the Blue Jackets.

    Shots from in close: Utah 7th, Columbus 24th

    Didn’t happen

    On share of 5-on-5 shots from within 20 feet, Utah had 19% and Columbus 38%. Coming in, Utah was at 31% and Columbus at 30%.

    UTA 31% · CBJ 30%
    Coming in
    UTA 19% · CBJ 38%
    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.

Too close to call on chances

Played out 100 times with these chances, Utah wins 52 and Columbus 48, close to a coin flip.

52%
Utah: 42 wins, plus half of the 19 ties
48%
Columbus: 38 wins, plus half of the 19 ties

Utah had 45 chances worth 2.9 expected goals. Columbus had 33 chances worth 2.8 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.

UtahColumbus
Goals41
Shots on goal3119
Expected goals2.92.8
Shot attempts at 5-on-55646
Power plays3 of 40 of 2

Swing

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

The biggest swings: D. Guenther +1.1, M. Knies +0.8 and L. Cooley +0.8.

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
  • M. SergachevBig night

    A power-play goal, 1 assist.

    Defense
    22:01
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–1.4
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play14.0typical 7.1
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.0typical 2.6
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-56typical 3
  • N. SchmidtMixed night
    Defense
    21:33
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.7typical 6.2
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.5typical 2.6
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.3typical 2.2
  • J. MarinoMixed night
    Defense
    20:27
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-50.6typical 2.6
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.2typical 2.2
  • M. WeegarDid his job
    Defense
    20:21
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–1.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    4
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.1typical 6.5
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-56typical 4
  • N. SchmaltzBig night

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

    Center
    17:39
    G
    2
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–1.1
    Shots
    8
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play13.7typical 6.9
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.7typical 6.3
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.3typical 2.6
  • V. TrocheckRough night

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

    Center
    17:27
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–1.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.0typical 7.5
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won6 of 17typical 59%
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
Show 12 more Utah playersHide the other Utah players
  • C. KellerBig night

    2 assists. A strong game, even though his usual jobs were quieter.

    Right wing
    17:04
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–1.1
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play8.6typical 6.9
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.32typical 0.14
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.9typical 2.7
  • D. GuentherBig night

    A power-play goal, 2 assists.

    Right wing
    16:51
    G
    1
    A
    2
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.6
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play13.7typical 7.0
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 4
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.21typical 0.15
  • L. CooleyBig night

    2 assists. A strong game, even though his usual jobs were quieter.

    Center
    16:48
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play13.8typical 7.0
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.11typical 0.10
    • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 2
  • D. SimashevRough night

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

    Defense
    16:40
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–1.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • A. PeekeDid his job
      Defense
      15:03
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      0
      xGF–xGA
      0.7–0.3
      Shots
      2
      Hits
      0
      Blocks
      1
      • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.4typical 6.7
      • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
      • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 1
    • J. McBainOff night
      Center
      14:34
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      0
      xGF–xGA
      0.1–0.5
      Shots
      0
      Hits
      6
      Blocks
      2
      • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits6typical 3
      • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.13
      • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 3
    • K. StenlundMixed night
      Center
      14:07
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      0
      xGF–xGA
      0.5–0.2
      Shots
      2
      Hits
      1
      Blocks
      1
      • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.5typical 6.8
      • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won7 of 15typical 56%
      • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
    • A. LeeDid his job
      Left wing
      13:47
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      0
      xGF–xGA
      0.9–0.5
      Shots
      1
      Hits
      3
      Blocks
      1
      • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.36typical 0.16
      • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 4
      • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.9typical 2.6
    • B. HaytonOff night
      Center
      13:47
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      0
      xGF–xGA
      0.1–0.5
      Shots
      0
      Hits
      1
      Blocks
      0
      • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 3
      • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won7 of 14typical 54%
      • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.12
    • L. CrouseMixed night
      Left wing
      13:37
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      0
      xGF–xGA
      0.1–0.6
      Shots
      2
      Hits
      1
      Blocks
      1
      • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.5typical 6.4
      • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 2
      • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.02typical 0.11
    • M. CarconeDid his job
      Left wing
      13:03
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      0
      xGF–xGA
      0.5–0.3
      Shots
      3
      Hits
      2
      Blocks
      0
      • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 4
      • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
      • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.4typical 2.7
    • D. ButDid his job
      Left wing
      11:11
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      0
      xGF–xGA
      0.5–0.1
      Shots
      0
      Hits
      4
      Blocks
      1
      • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.01typical 0.10
      • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.8typical 2.8
      • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.8typical 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: 39 ✓, 9 ≈, 37 ✕.

    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.

    • S. CossaBig night

      18 saves on 19 shots, +1.8 goals saved above expected.

      Goalie
      60:00
      Shots
      19
      Saves
      18
      Sv%
      .947
      xGA
      2.8
      GSAx
      +1.8
      Dangerous
      3/4
      • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.8typical +0.0
      • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance3 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
      • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance15 of 15typically saves 14 of 15
    • J. GreavesOff night
      Goalie
      60:00
      Shots
      31
      Saves
      27
      Sv%
      .871
      xGA
      2.9
      GSAx
      −1.1
      Dangerous
      5/6
      • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-1.1typical +0.5
      • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance5 of 6typically saves 5 of 6
      • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance22 of 25typically saves 23 of 25

    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: Utah Mammoth · Columbus Blue Jackets