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

BOS1

Boston Bruins

MIN4

Minnesota Wild

Saturday, October 3

Final · Grand Casino Arena

The short version

What happened

The Wild beat the Bruins

Tanner Jeannot opened the scoring 1:53 in. Kirill Kaprizov added two goals.

The chances were closer than the score.

What it means

  • The previewOne of the preview’s four calls held.
  • RecordThe Wild 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 gave Boston only a 23% chance, and it went the way we feared.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−10 points37%
Who's been playing−8 points29%
Back-to-back−6 points23%
Our chance for Boston the morning of the game23%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known23%

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 Minnesota a 77% chance, and Minnesota delivered.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+10 points63%
Who's been playing+8 points71%
Back-to-back+6 points77%
Our chance for Minnesota the morning of the game77%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known77%

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 4 calls the preview made, 1 held up, 0 partly did, and 3 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    The Wild can’t afford to take penalties

    The Wild’s penalty kill is around the middle of the league, and the Bruins’ power play is near the top of the league. Discipline matters more than usual for the Wild tonight.

    The call The Bruins’ power play creates at least their usual 7.7 expected goals per 60.

    Boston 9th for power play (7.7 expected goals per 60) · Minnesota 22nd for penalty kill

    Held up

    Boston’s power play created 8.5 expected goals per 60 in 5:59 of 5-on-4 time, against their usual 7.7, and scored 0 goals.

    7.7 per 60
    Coming in
    8.5 per 60
    In this game
    7.5 per 60
    League average

  2. Before the game

    The Bruins should pile up the shots

    The Bruins shoot a lot, and the Wild are around the middle of the league at keeping shots down. Look for a big shot total.

    The call The Bruins take at least their usual 59.1 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Boston 10th for shot volume (59.1 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5) · Minnesota 22nd for shot suppression

    Didn’t happen

    Boston took 47.0 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5 (adjusted for score and venue), against their usual 59.1.

    59.1 per 60
    Coming in
    47.0 per 60
    In this game
    56.3 per 60
    League average

  3. Before the game

    Expect a track meet

    Boston plays some of the league’s fastest games, and so does Minnesota. We think this one runs hotter than either team’s usual.

    The call The game runs at more than 85.2 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, faster than either team’s usual.

    Pace (shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams): Boston 7th (83.5), Minnesota 3rd (85.2)

    Didn’t happen

    The game ran at 71.3 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined, against the faster team’s usual 85.2 and a league average of 81.9.

    85.2 per 60
    Coming in
    71.3 per 60
    In this game
    81.9 per 60
    League average

  4. Before the game

    The Wild get in close; the Bruins shoot from distance

    The Wild are near the top of the league for shots from in close, at the close-range end; the Bruins are one of the league’s worst, at the long-range end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Wild take a bigger share of their shots from within 20 feet than the Bruins.

    Shots from in close: Minnesota 6th, Boston 29th

    Didn’t happen

    On share of 5-on-5 shots from within 20 feet, Minnesota had 32% and Boston 37%. Coming in, Minnesota was at 32% and Boston at 29%.

    MIN 32% · BOS 29%
    Coming in
    MIN 32% · BOS 37%
    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, Boston wins 57 and Minnesota 43, close to a coin flip.

57%
Boston: 47 wins, plus half of the 19 ties
43%
Minnesota: 34 wins, plus half of the 19 ties

Boston had 37 chances worth 2.7 expected goals. Minnesota had 32 chances worth 2.3 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.

BostonMinnesota
Goals14
Shots on goal2730
Expected goals2.72.3
Shot attempts at 5-on-53838
Power plays0 of 32 of 2

Swing

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

The biggest swings: K. Kaprizov +0.9, Q. Hughes +0.6 and M. Shabanov +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
  • H. LindholmOff night
    Defense
    21:38
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.8typical 6.8
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.6typical 2.3
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.0typical 2.2
  • D. PastrnakDid his job
    Right wing
    21:02
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.6
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play9.0typical 7.2
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-57typical 5
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.8typical 2.3
  • J. PeterkaDid his job
    Right wing
    20:38
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.2typical 5.8
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 4
  • P. ZachaDid his job
    Center
    19:27
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play11.0typical 7.4
    • ≈Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won7 of 13typical 54%
  • W. BorgenDid his job
    Defense
    19:21
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    3
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill13.6typical 7.0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 2
  • M. GeekieDid his job
    Center
    18:45
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play9.5typical 7.4
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 2
Show 9 more Boston playersHide the other Boston players
  • C. CliftonMixed night
    Defense
    18:06
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 3
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • C. MittelstadtDid his job
    Center
    17:18
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.3typical 6.6
  • E. LindholmMixed night
    Center
    16:56
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play10.1typical 7.0
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won14 of 20typical 55%
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 2
  • J. AspirotDid his job
    Defense
    16:36
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 1
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 1
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • N. ZadorovDid his job
    Defense
    15:45
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 2
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • F. MintenOff night
    Center
    14:28
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.4
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won1 of 11typical 49%
  • M. KastelicMixed night
    Center
    10:59
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
    • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 2
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • S. KuralyDid his job
    Center
    10:36
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.1
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won5 of 8typical 52%
    • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 2
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 2
  • T. JeannotDid his job

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

    Left wing
    8:10
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 2
    • –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: 37 ✓, 12 ≈, 20 ✕.

In net

Each goalie’s night: the goals he stopped beyond what the shots were worth, and the dangerous and routine saves.

  • M. DiPietroDid his job
    Goalie
    57:53
    Shots
    29
    Saves
    26
    Sv%
    .897
    xGA
    2.3
    GSAx
    −0.7
    Dangerous
    4/5
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.7typical +0.0
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance4 of 5typically saves 4 of 5
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance22 of 24typically saves 22 of 24
  • J. WallstedtBig night

    26 saves on 27 shots, +1.7 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    27
    Saves
    26
    Sv%
    .963
    xGA
    2.7
    GSAx
    +1.7
    Dangerous
    4/4
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.7typical +0.6
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance4 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance22 of 23typically saves 22 of 23

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: Boston Bruins · Minnesota Wild