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

DAL1

Dallas Stars

NSH2

Nashville Predators

Saturday, October 3

Final · Bridgestone Arena

The short version

What happened

The Predators beat the Stars

Miro Heiskanen opened the scoring 47 seconds in. Nils Hoglander scored the winner late in the first.

The chances were close to even, so this one could have gone either way.

What it means

  • The previewOne of the preview’s two calls held.
  • RecordThe Predators are now 1-1-0.

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 (50% for Dallas), and it went Nashville’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+10 points57%
Who's been playing+1 points58%
Back-to-back−8 points50%
Our chance for Dallas the morning of the game50%
Tonight's lineup−5 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 (50% for Nashville), and Nashville came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−10 points43%
Who's been playing−1 points42%
Back-to-back+8 points50%
Our chance for Nashville the morning of the game50%
Tonight's lineup+5 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

    The Stars hunt better looks than the Predators

    On shot quality, Dallas is one of the league’s best and Nashville is one of the league’s worst. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Stars’ shots are more dangerous on average than the Predators’.

    Shot quality: Dallas 3rd, Nashville 28th

    Didn’t happen

    On how dangerous the average shot was, Dallas had 4.3% a shot and Nashville 4.7% a shot. Coming in, Dallas was at 6.8% a shot and Nashville at 5.9% a shot.

    DAL 6.8% a shot · NSH 5.9% a shot
    Coming in
    DAL 4.3% a shot · NSH 4.7% a shot
    In this game

  2. Before the game

    The Stars’ power play outclasses the Predators’

    On the power play, Dallas is one of the league’s best and Nashville is near the bottom of the league. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Stars’ power play creates more per 60 than the Predators’.

    Power play: Dallas 3rd, Nashville 25th

    Held up

    On power-play expected goals per 60, Dallas had 13.9 per 60 and Nashville 3.8 per 60. Coming in, Dallas was at 8.6 per 60 and Nashville at 7.3 per 60.

    DAL 8.6 per 60 · NSH 7.3 per 60
    Coming in
    DAL 13.9 per 60 · NSH 3.8 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.

Too close to call on chances

Played out 100 times with these chances, Dallas wins 50 and Nashville 50, close to a coin flip.

50%
Dallas: 40 wins, plus half of the 21 ties
50%
Nashville: 39 wins, plus half of the 21 ties

Dallas had 43 chances worth 2.1 expected goals. Nashville had 36 chances worth 2.1 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.

DallasNashville
Goals12
Shots on goal3026
Expected goals2.12.1
Shot attempts at 5-on-55647
Power plays0 of 12 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: M. Heiskanen +0.7, M. Rantanen +0.5 and N. Hoglander +0.5.

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. HarleyMixed night
    Defense
    25:57
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.7
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.4typical 6.4
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.9typical 2.3
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 2
  • M. HeiskanenDid his job

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 10, so it counts for more.

    Defense
    24:35
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.7
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play17.8typical 8.2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.2typical 6.2
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.1typical 2.1
  • M. RantanenDid his job
    Right wing
    23:55
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.8
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play14.9typical 8.0
  • W. JohnstonMixed night
    Center
    22:50
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.8
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play19.5typical 8.3
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.5typical 2.6
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.13typical 0.17
  • E. LindellMixed night
    Defense
    19:11
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.0typical 6.4
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 2
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.5typical 2.0
  • J. RobertsonOff night
    Left wing
    18:50
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play19.7typical 8.2
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.4typical 2.6
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 4
Show 9 more Dallas playersHide the other Dallas players
  • S. SteelDid his job
    Center
    16:09
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.1
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.8typical 6.2
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.6typical 2.2
  • R. HintzDid his job
    Center
    16:03
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play19.9typical 8.5
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won7 of 11typical 54%
  • L. BichselDid his job
    Defense
    15:12
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    5
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits5typical 2
  • J. HryckowianOff night
    Center
    14:30
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–1.0
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.4typical 2.1
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
    • –Faceoffs Better than mostToo little time to judge
  • T. MyersMixed night
    Defense
    14:27
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.04typical 0.04
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • A. HyryDid his job
    Right wing
    12:29
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.7typical 6.2
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won5 of 8typical 58%
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 2
  • R. FaksaDid his job
    Center
    10:28
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.0typical 5.9
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.5typical 2.0
  • O. BäckDid his job
    Center
    9:38
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.1
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.1
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.1typical 2.0
  • C. BlackwellDid his job
    Center
    7:29
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.1
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 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: 31 ✓, 7 ≈, 23 ✕.

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. DeSmithDid his job
    Goalie
    58:24
    Shots
    26
    Saves
    24
    Sv%
    .923
    xGA
    2.1
    GSAx
    +0.1
    Dangerous
    2/3
    • ≈Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.1typical +0.6
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance2 of 3typically saves 2 of 3
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance22 of 23typically saves 22 of 23
  • J. SarosDid his job
    Goalie
    59:57
    Shots
    30
    Saves
    29
    Sv%
    .967
    xGA
    2.1
    GSAx
    +1.1
    Dangerous
    1/1
    • ✓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% chance28 of 29typically saves 27 of 29

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: Dallas Stars · Nashville Predators