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

SEA1

Seattle Kraken

EDM3

Edmonton Oilers

Saturday, October 3

Final · Rogers Place

The short version

What happened

The Oilers beat the Kraken

Owen Michaels opened the scoring early in the first. Leon Draisaitl scored the winner late in the third.

The score was fair. Replay this game’s chances a hundred times and the Oilers win about four in five.

What it means

  • The previewNone of the preview’s three calls held.
  • RecordThe Oilers are now 2-0-1.

Our pre-game read

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

We gave Seattle only a 27% chance, and it went the way we feared.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−17 points30%
Who's been playing−3 points27%
Back-to-back0 points27%
Our chance for Seattle the morning of the game27%
Tonight's lineup+2 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known29%

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 Edmonton a 73% chance, and Edmonton delivered.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+17 points70%
Who's been playing+3 points73%
Back-to-back0 points73%
Our chance for Edmonton the morning of the game73%
Tonight's lineup−2 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known71%

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, 0 held up, 0 partly did, and 3 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    Special teams lean toward the Oilers

    The Oilers’ power play is the league’s best, and the Kraken’s kill is one of the league’s worst. Every trip to the box hurts the Kraken more than most.

    The call The Oilers’ power play creates at least their usual 9.7 expected goals per 60.

    Edmonton 1st for power play (9.7 expected goals per 60) · Seattle 29th for penalty kill

    Didn’t happen

    Edmonton’s power play created 6.2 expected goals per 60 in 5:06 of 5-on-4 time, against their usual 9.7, and scored 0 goals.

    9.7 per 60
    Coming in
    6.2 per 60
    In this game
    7.6 per 60
    League average

  2. Before the game

    The Oilers can’t afford to cough it up

    The Kraken turn stolen pucks into chances, and the Oilers are one of the league’s worst at avoiding breakdowns. A sloppy pass or two could cost the Oilers.

    The call The Kraken get at least their usual 7.5% of their 5-on-5 chances right after winning the puck.

    Seattle 10th for chances off turnovers (7.5% of their chances come right after winning the puck) · Edmonton 29th for avoiding breakdowns

    Didn’t happen

    0.6% of Seattle’s 5-on-5 chances came right after winning the puck, against their usual 7.5%.

    7.5%
    Coming in
    0.6%
    In this game
    7.3%
    League average

  3. Before the game

    Sheltered against exposed

    The Kraken are one of the league’s best for preventing dangerous shots, at the sheltered end; the Oilers are one of the league’s worst, at the exposed end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Kraken prevent dangerous shots better than the Oilers do.

    Preventing dangerous shots: Seattle 2nd, Edmonton 31st

    Didn’t happen

    On how dangerous the average shot allowed was, Seattle had 7.7% a shot and Edmonton 6.2% a shot. Coming in, Seattle was at 6.0% a shot and Edmonton at 6.7% a shot.

    SEA 6.0% a shot · EDM 6.7% a shot
    Coming in
    SEA 7.7% a shot · EDM 6.2% a shot
    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.

Edmonton earned this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Edmonton wins 79.

21%
Seattle: 14 wins, plus half of the 14 ties
79%
Edmonton: 72 wins, plus half of the 14 ties

Seattle had 26 chances worth 1.7 expected goals. Edmonton had 41 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.

SeattleEdmonton
Goals13
Shots on goal2026
Expected goals1.73.5
Shot attempts at 5-on-53145
Power plays1 of 20 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: L. Draisaitl +1.6, C. McDavid +1.4 and V. Podkolzin +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
  • V. DunnOff night
    Defense
    23:50
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play11.5typical 7.1
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.5typical 2.1
  • A. LarssonMixed night
    Defense
    23:39
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    3
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill12.1typical 7.5
    • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 3
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots3typical 2
  • B. MontourOff night
    Defense
    23:21
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–1.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    5
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.8typical 5.7
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 4
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.01typical 0.05
  • C. StephensonDid his job
    Center
    18:07
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play11.6typical 7.2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.6typical 7.5
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won11 of 18typical 52%
  • B. McMannOff night
    Center
    17:58
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.5
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    3
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 4
  • J. EberleDid his job
    Right wing
    17:10
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play11.3typical 7.2
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.38typical 0.13
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.2typical 2.1
Show 10 more Seattle playersHide the other Seattle players
  • M. BeniersRough night

    No points, and 80% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Center
    16:06
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–1.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.8typical 7.0
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
    • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won3 of 10typical 47%
  • S. WrightOff night
    Center
    14:40
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 5.7
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
  • J. McCannRough night

    No points, and 81% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Left wing
    14:29
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–1.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play11.1typical 7.1
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.5typical 2.3
  • R. LindgrenOff night
    Defense
    13:57
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.1typical 6.8
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
  • C. FleuryDid his job
    Defense
    13:47
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.2
    Shots
    2
    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-50.8typical 2.3
  • K. KakkoRough night

    No points, and 80% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Right wing
    13:11
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–1.1
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.6typical 2.2
  • M. SamoskevichOff night
    Right wing
    11:54
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.0typical 2.2
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-50.9typical 2.5
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.10
  • F. GaudreauOff night
    Center
    11:37
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.2
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill10.9typical 7.1
    • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won4 of 10typical 45%
  • R. WintertonMixed night
    Center
    11:26
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 2
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.5typical 2.3
  • B. MeyersOff night
    Center
    10:59
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.6typical 7.0
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-50.7typical 2.2
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.07
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: 35 ✓, 5 ≈, 31 ✕.

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.

  • P. GrubauerDid his job
    Goalie
    59:06
    Shots
    25
    Saves
    23
    Sv%
    .920
    xGA
    3.5
    GSAx
    +1.5
    Dangerous
    6/7
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.5typical -0.1
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance6 of 7typically saves 5 of 7
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance17 of 18typically saves 17 of 18
  • D. LeviDid his job
    Goalie
    59:38
    Shots
    20
    Saves
    19
    Sv%
    .950
    xGA
    1.7
    GSAx
    +0.7
    Dangerous
    4/4
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.7typical +0.0
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance4 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance15 of 16typically saves 15 of 16

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: Seattle Kraken · Edmonton Oilers