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

LAK4

Los Angeles Kings

SJS5

San Jose Sharks

Saturday, October 3

Final in overtime · SAP Center at San Jose

The short version

What happened

The Sharks steal one

Adrian Kempe opened the scoring late in the first. Igor Chernyshov added two goals. Four different Sharks scored. The game was tied twice. Chernyshov won it in overtime.

The Kings had the better of the play. Replay the chances a hundred times and the Kings win about four in five. By our Swing measure, Artemi Panarin had the best night of anyone, even in a loss.

What it means

  • The previewOne of the preview’s two calls held.
  • RecordThe Sharks 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 had this close to even (51% for Los Angeles), and it went San Jose’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+5 points52%
Who's been playing−1 points51%
Back-to-back0 points51%
Our chance for Los Angeles the morning of the game51%
Tonight's lineup−1 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known50%

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 (49% for San Jose), and San Jose came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−5 points48%
Who's been playing+1 points49%
Back-to-back0 points49%
Our chance for San Jose the morning of the game49%
Tonight's lineup+1 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known50%

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 Sharks give up shots, and the Kings take them

    San Jose has been giving up shots all season, and the Kings rarely pass one up.

    The call The Kings take at least their usual 59.9 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Los Angeles 8th for shot volume (59.9 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5) · San Jose 23rd for shot suppression

    Held up

    Los Angeles took 61.6 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5 (adjusted for score and venue), against their usual 59.9.

    59.9 per 60
    Coming in
    61.6 per 60
    In this game
    56.5 per 60
    League average

  2. Before the game

    The Sharks hunt better looks than the Kings

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

    The call The Sharks’ shots are more dangerous on average than the Kings’.

    Shot quality: San Jose 14th, Los Angeles 32nd

    Didn’t happen

    On how dangerous the average shot was, San Jose had 4.0% a shot and Los Angeles 6.7% a shot. Coming in, San Jose was at 6.3% a shot and Los Angeles at 5.7% a shot.

    SJS 6.3% a shot · LAK 5.7% a shot
    Coming in
    SJS 4.0% a shot · LAK 6.7% 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.

Los Angeles usually wins this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Los Angeles wins 83. The goals went the other way.

83%
Los Angeles: 77 wins, plus half of the 12 ties
17%
San Jose: 11 wins, plus half of the 12 ties

Los Angeles had 54 chances worth 3.6 expected goals. San Jose had 32 chances worth 1.5 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.

Los AngelesSan Jose
Goals45
Shots on goal3525
Expected goals3.81.7
Shot attempts at 5-on-55538
Power plays2 of 31 of 2

Swing

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

The biggest swings: A. Panarin +1.5, Q. Byfield +1.3 and A. Kempe +0.9.

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
  • Q. ByfieldBig night

    A power-play goal, 1 assist, 82% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on.

    Right wing
    22:40
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    1.8–0.4
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.8typical 6.4
    • ✓Taking the puck away Better than mosttakeaways2typical 1
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won13 of 20typical 52%
  • A. PanarinBig night

    A goal, 1 assist, 76% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on.

    Left wing
    22:21
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.6–0.5
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.8typical 7.4
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-55.7typical 2.3
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-56typical 4
  • A. KempeBig night

    A power-play goal, 1 assist, 80% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on.

    Right wing
    22:00
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–0.3
    Shots
    6
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.3typical 6.6
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-510typical 5
  • B. ClarkeBig night

    2 assists, 83% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on.

    Defense
    20:44
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    1.4–0.3
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.3typical 6.5
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 2
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-56.0typical 2.3
  • M. ZuccarelloMixed night
    Right wing
    19:18
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.4typical 7.5
  • C. CeciDid his job
    Defense
    17:38
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.7typical 6.3
Show 8 more Los Angeles playersHide the other Los Angeles players
  • A. LaferriereDid his job
    Right wing
    16:45
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 4
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 3
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.33typical 0.14
  • M. AndersonDid his job
    Defense
    16:25
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.7typical 6.9
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.8typical 2.1
  • T. MooreOff night
    Left wing
    16:07
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill11.1typical 5.8
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 4
  • A. TurcotteMixed night
    Center
    15:15
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.8typical 2.3
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.13typical 0.12
  • E. HaulaBig night

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 6, on top of doing his usual jobs.

    Left wing
    14:45
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.6typical 6.2
    • ✓Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won10 of 20typical 48%
  • S. LaughtonMixed night
    Center
    13:30
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill11.1typical 7.0
    • ≈Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won6 of 11typical 57%
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.0typical 2.3
  • J. ArmiaDid his job
    Right wing
    13:27
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    4
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.7typical 6.1
  • J. EdmundsonOff night
    Defense
    13:17
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill12.7typical 6.8
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 ✓, 8 ≈, 21 ✕.

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.

  • A. ForsbergRough night

    20 saves on 25 shots, −3.3 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    62:52
    Shots
    25
    Saves
    20
    Sv%
    .800
    xGA
    1.7
    GSAx
    −3.3
    Dangerous
    0/1
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-3.3typical +0.1
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance20 of 24typically saves 23 of 24
  • Y. AskarovMixed night
    Goalie
    63:18
    Shots
    35
    Saves
    31
    Sv%
    .886
    xGA
    3.8
    GSAx
    −0.2
    Dangerous
    1/2
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.2typical -0.4
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance30 of 33typically saves 31 of 33

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: Los Angeles Kings · San Jose Sharks