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

CGY1

Calgary Flames

VAN4

Vancouver Canucks

Saturday, October 3

Final · Rogers Arena

The short version

What happened

The Canucks beat the Flames

Matt Coronato opened the scoring late in the first. Four different Canucks scored.

The chances were closer than the score. By our Swing measure, Liam Ohgren had the best night of anyone. The Canucks tried a line they hadn’t used before: Elias Pettersson, Linus Karlsson and Marco Rossi, and it had a hand in three of their goals.

What it means

  • Keep an eye onWhether the Canucks keep that line together at home against Vegas on Sunday.
  • The previewBoth of the preview’s calls held.

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 (44% for Calgary), and it went Vancouver’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+1 points48%
Who's been playing−4 points44%
Back-to-back0 points44%
Our chance for Calgary the morning of the game44%
Tonight's lineup+2 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known46%

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 (56% for Vancouver), and Vancouver came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−1 points52%
Who's been playing+4 points56%
Back-to-back0 points56%
Our chance for Vancouver the morning of the game56%
Tonight's lineup−2 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known54%

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

  1. Before the game

    The Flames will outshoot the Canucks

    On shot volume, Calgary is around the middle of the league and Vancouver is one of the league’s worst. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Flames take more 5-on-5 shot attempts per 60 than the Canucks.

    Shot volume: Calgary 12th, Vancouver 30th

    Held up

    On 5-on-5 shot attempts per 60, Calgary had 80.7 per 60 and Vancouver 58.0 per 60. Coming in, Calgary was at 58.8 per 60 and Vancouver at 48.6 per 60.

    CGY 58.8 per 60 · VAN 48.6 per 60
    Coming in
    CGY 80.7 per 60 · VAN 58.0 per 60
    In this game

  2. Before the game

    Good looks against hopeful ones

    The Canucks are around the middle of the league for shot quality, at the dangerous end; the Flames are one of the league’s worst, at the hopeful end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Canucks’ shots are more dangerous on average than the Flames’.

    Shot quality: Vancouver 15th, Calgary 31st

    Held up

    On how dangerous the average shot was, Vancouver had 6.7% a shot and Calgary 4.1% a shot. Coming in, Vancouver was at 6.3% a shot and Calgary at 5.9% a shot.

    Called it, and then some. Calgary’s shots at 5-on-5 were less dangerous than usual: a 4.1% chance of scoring on the average shot, against their usual 5.9% (league average 6.3%). A team strays this far about once every 15 games.

    VAN 6.3% a shot · CGY 5.9% a shot
    Coming in
    VAN 6.7% a shot · CGY 4.1% 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: 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.

Vancouver earned this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Vancouver wins 68.

32%
Calgary: 23 wins, plus half of the 18 ties
68%
Vancouver: 59 wins, plus half of the 18 ties

Calgary had 41 chances worth 1.9 expected goals. Vancouver 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.

CalgaryVancouver
Goals14
Shots on goal2426
Expected goals1.92.9
Shot attempts at 5-on-55846
Power plays1 of 20 of 5

Swing

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

The biggest swings: L. Ohgren +1.1, L. Karlsson +1.0 and E. Pettersson +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
  • Z. WhitecloudDid his job
    Defense
    25:01
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    5
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.1typical 6.4
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 2
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.6typical 2.3
  • K. BahlDid his job
    Defense
    22:37
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.8typical 6.8
  • S. NemecMixed night
    Defense
    19:59
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–1.0
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.01typical 0.05
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-56typical 3
  • M. BacklundDid his job
    Center
    18:57
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.4
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.3typical 7.4
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 3
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.2typical 2.4
  • J. MiddletonDid his job
    Defense
    17:39
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.6typical 7.2
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 1
  • Z. ParekhDid his job
    Defense
    17:00
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.7
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.9typical 6.4
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-58typical 3
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.36typical 0.04
Show 12 more Calgary playersHide the other Calgary players
  • Y. SharangovichOff night
    Center
    16:55
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 3
    • –Power play Relied onToo little time to judge
  • M. CoronatoBig night

    A power-play goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 5, on top of doing his usual jobs.

    Right wing
    16:48
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    −4
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.9typical 6.6
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 4
  • M. GridinDid his job
    Right wing
    16:46
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.7
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.0typical 6.8
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-58typical 4
  • J. HanleyRough night

    No points, and 73% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    16:18
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–1.0
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    3
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.6typical 2.2
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots3typical 1
  • M. FrostDid his job
    Center
    15:48
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −4
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.7
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    4
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.0typical 6.9
    • ≈Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won7 of 13typical 58%
  • S. HonzekMixed night
    Left wing
    15:40
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.7typical 6.3
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 3
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.7typical 2.0
  • J. FarabeeDid his job
    Left wing
    14:35
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.3typical 6.8
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • M. PospisilDid his job
    Center
    12:31
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 4
  • R. StromeDid his job
    Center
    11:34
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 2
  • M. TsyplakovDid his job
    Right wing
    11:29
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    6
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.9typical 2.4
  • B. OthmannDid his job
    Left wing
    10:30
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 2
  • A. KlapkaDid his job
    Right wing
    8:07
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 3
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: 41 ✓, 5 ≈, 13 ✕.

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.

  • D. CooleyOff night
    Goalie
    59:46
    Shots
    25
    Saves
    22
    Sv%
    .880
    xGA
    2.9
    GSAx
    −0.1
    Dangerous
    1/2
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.1typical +0.7
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance21 of 23typically saves 22 of 23
  • L. MeriläinenDid his job
    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    24
    Saves
    23
    Sv%
    .958
    xGA
    1.9
    GSAx
    +0.9
    Dangerous
    3/3
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.9typical -0.5
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance3 of 3typically saves 2 of 3
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance20 of 21typically saves 20 of 21

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: Calgary Flames · Vancouver Canucks