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

STL1

St. Louis Blues

COL6

Colorado Avalanche

Saturday, October 3

Final · Ball Arena

The short version

What happened

The Avalanche roll past the Blues

Cale Makar opened the scoring early in the first. Martin Necas added two goals. Five different Avalanche scored.

The score was fair. Replay this game’s chances a hundred times and the Avalanche win about four in five. The Blues tried a line they hadn’t used before: Dillon Dube, Pius Suter and Zach Dean.

What it means

  • Keep an eye onWhether the Blues keep that line together in Chicago on Tuesday.
  • The previewOne of the preview’s two calls held.

Our pre-game read

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

We gave St. Louis only a 28% chance, and it went the way we feared.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−13 points34%
Who's been playing+1 points35%
Back-to-back−7 points28%
Our chance for St. Louis the morning of the game28%
Tonight's lineup+1 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 Colorado a 72% chance, and Colorado delivered.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+13 points66%
Who's been playing−1 points65%
Back-to-back+7 points72%
Our chance for Colorado the morning of the game72%
Tonight's lineup−1 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 2 calls the preview made, 1 held up, 0 partly did, and 1 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    Something has to give

    The Blues are the league’s best for chance quality, and the Avalanche are one of the league’s best at preventing dangerous shots. We think the Blues still get theirs.

    The call The Blues’ chances are more dangerous than the league average (a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot) against the Avalanche.

    St. Louis 1st for chance quality (a 7.0% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Colorado 3rd for preventing dangerous shots

    Didn’t happen

    On chance quality, St. Louis had 5.1% a shot. The league average is 6.3% a shot, and they came in at 7.0% a shot.

    7.0% a shot
    Coming in
    5.1% a shot
    In this game
    6.3% a shot
    League average

  2. Before the game

    The Avalanche will outshoot the Blues

    The Avalanche are the league’s best for shot volume, at the relentless end; the Blues are near the bottom of the league, at the selective end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Avalanche take more 5-on-5 shot attempts per 60 than the Blues.

    Shot volume: Colorado 1st, St. Louis 23rd

    Held up

    On 5-on-5 shot attempts per 60, Colorado had 74.6 per 60 and St. Louis 56.4 per 60. Coming in, Colorado was at 68.4 per 60 and St. Louis at 53.7 per 60.

    COL 68.4 per 60 · STL 53.7 per 60
    Coming in
    COL 74.6 per 60 · STL 56.4 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: 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.

Colorado earned this one

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

21%
St. Louis: 14 wins, plus half of the 14 ties
79%
Colorado: 72 wins, plus half of the 14 ties

St. Louis had 35 chances worth 1.8 expected goals. Colorado had 45 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.

St. LouisColorado
Goals16
Shots on goal2636
Expected goals1.83.6
Shot attempts at 5-on-54955
Power plays0 of 20 of 4

Swing

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

The biggest swings: M. Necas +1.8, A. Lehkonen +1.5 and J. Manson +1.5.

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
  • C. FowlerDid his job
    Defense
    23:24
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    3
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.7typical 6.1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.9typical 6.2
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.7typical 2.3
  • C. ParaykoMixed night
    Defense
    20:45
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–1.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.7typical 6.7
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots3typical 2
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.5typical 2.2
  • P. BrobergRough night

    No points, and 83% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    20:16
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −4
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–1.4
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.8typical 6.6
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.0typical 2.4
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.02typical 0.05
  • A. JiricekMixed night

    No points, and 78% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on, though he still did his usual jobs.

    Defense
    19:43
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–1.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.11typical 0.05
  • B. CarloDid his job
    Defense
    17:36
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.8typical 6.7
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • R. ThomasDid his job
    Center
    16:30
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.7typical 6.4
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.9typical 6.7
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.4typical 2.6
Show 11 more St. Louis playersHide the other St. Louis players
  • P. SuterRough night

    No points, and 84% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Center
    16:14
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.2typical 6.0
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.11
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.9typical 2.2
  • P. BuchnevichOff night
    Left wing
    15:43
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.9typical 5.4
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.1typical 2.4
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • D. HollowayMixed night
    Left wing
    15:35
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.8
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.7typical 6.2
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.7typical 2.2
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 3
  • C. McMichaelOff night
    Left wing
    15:19
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play5.0typical 5.9
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.4typical 6.6
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.6typical 2.5
  • M. McTavishMixed night
    Center
    14:57
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.5
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.6typical 6.2
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 3
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.12typical 0.12
  • J. SnuggerudMixed night
    Right wing
    14:51
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.7typical 6.5
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 3
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.01typical 0.11
  • T. LindsteinOff night
    Defense
    14:26
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.9
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.01typical 0.04
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.4typical 2.5
  • J. NeighboursOff night
    Left wing
    13:43
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.8
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    5
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play5.0typical 6.0
  • D. DubeRough night

    No points, and 89% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Center
    13:16
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • Z. DeanRough night

      No points, and 86% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

      Center
      12:37
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      −2
      xGF–xGA
      0.2–1.0
      Shots
      0
      Hits
      2
      Blocks
      1
      • D. DvorskyMixed night

        A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 6, so it counts for more.

        Right wing
        12:17
        G
        1
        A
        0
        +/−
        −1
        xGF–xGA
        0.5–0.8
        Shots
        3
        Hits
        0
        Blocks
        0
        • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play5.5typical 5.8
        • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won4 of 10typical 46%
      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 ✓, 6 ≈, 29 ✕.

      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. BinningtonRough night

        30 saves on 36 shots, −2.4 goals saved above expected.

        Goalie
        60:00
        Shots
        36
        Saves
        30
        Sv%
        .833
        xGA
        3.6
        GSAx
        −2.4
        Dangerous
        2/5
        • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-2.4typical -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% chance28 of 31typically saves 28 of 31
      • M. BlackwoodDid his job
        Goalie
        60:00
        Shots
        26
        Saves
        25
        Sv%
        .962
        xGA
        1.8
        GSAx
        +0.8
        Dangerous
        1/2
        • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.8typical +0.2
        • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
        • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance24 of 24typically saves 23 of 24

      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: St. Louis Blues · Colorado Avalanche