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

UTA2

Utah Mammoth

NYR4

New York Rangers

Sunday, October 4

Final · Madison Square Garden

The short version

What happened

The Rangers beat the Mammoth

Vladislav Gavrikov opened the scoring late in the first. Four different Rangers scored. J.T. Miller scored the winner midway through the third.

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

What it means

  • StreakThree straight wins for the Rangers.
  • 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 Utah), and it went NY Rangers’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+11 points57%
Who's been playing−5 points52%
Back-to-back−8 points44%
Our chance for Utah the morning of the game44%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known44%

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 NY Rangers), and NY Rangers came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−11 points43%
Who's been playing+5 points48%
Back-to-back+8 points56%
Our chance for NY Rangers the morning of the game56%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known56%

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

    This one’s going to leave marks

    The Mammoth and the Rangers are both among the league’s heaviest hitters, even after adjusting for each arena’s scorer. Keep your head up.

    The call The two teams’ combined hit score reaches their usual 116.

    Hit score (100 is league average): Utah 110 (5th), NY Rangers 121 (2nd)

    Held up

    The two teams’ combined hit score was 120, against their usual 116 (100 is league average, after adjusting for the arena’s scorer).

    hit score 116
    Coming in
    hit score 120
    In this game
    hit score 100
    League average

  2. Before the game

    The Mammoth will outshoot the Rangers

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

    The call The Mammoth take more 5-on-5 shot attempts per 60 than the Rangers.

    Shot volume: Utah 3rd, NY Rangers 27th

    Held up

    On 5-on-5 shot attempts per 60, Utah had 69.5 per 60 and NY Rangers 49.0 per 60. Coming in, Utah was at 64.5 per 60 and NY Rangers at 52.4 per 60.

    UTA 64.5 per 60 · NYR 52.4 per 60
    Coming in
    UTA 69.5 per 60 · NYR 49.0 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, Utah wins 52 and NY Rangers 48, close to a coin flip.

52%
Utah: 44 wins, plus half of the 16 ties
48%
NY Rangers: 39 wins, plus half of the 16 ties

Utah had 39 chances worth 3.5 expected goals. NY Rangers had 33 chances worth 3.4 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.

UtahNY Rangers
Goals24
Shots on goal3022
Expected goals3.53.4
Shot attempts at 5-on-55940
Power plays1 of 20 of 4

Swing

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

The biggest swings: A. Fox +1.3, A. Lafrenière +1.0 and V. Gavrikov +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
  • M. SergachevDid his job
    Defense
    23:51
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.3–0.8
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play8.8typical 7.1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.1typical 6.6
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 4
  • N. SchmidtMixed night
    Defense
    22:39
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.9
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.2typical 6.2
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.7typical 2.6
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.8typical 2.2
  • M. WeegarDid his job
    Defense
    22:00
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    6
    Blocks
    5
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill10.2typical 6.5
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits6typical 3
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-57typical 4
  • J. MarinoMixed night
    Defense
    21:07
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–1.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.3typical 2.5
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.1typical 2.2
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • L. CooleyMixed night
    Center
    18:28
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play23.8typical 7.1
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.12
    • ✓Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won6 of 12typical 46%
  • C. KellerDid his job
    Right wing
    18:03
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.6
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play23.4typical 6.9
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.21typical 0.15
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.5typical 2.7
Show 11 more Utah playersHide the other Utah players
  • V. TrocheckDid his job
    Center
    17:58
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–1.0
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.3typical 7.4
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won7 of 12typical 56%
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 3
  • N. SchmaltzMixed night
    Center
    17:18
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.8
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play23.4typical 7.0
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.9typical 2.6
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 3
  • D. GuentherMixed night
    Right wing
    15:45
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play23.8typical 7.0
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 4
    • ≈Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.11typical 0.15
  • L. CrouseDid his job
    Left wing
    15:20
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.4
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill11.3typical 6.4
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 2
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.39typical 0.12
  • A. PeekeMixed night

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 16, so it counts for more.

    Defense
    14:04
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.8
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.2typical 6.6
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
  • B. HaytonDid his job
    Center
    13:18
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won3 of 10typical 53%
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-54.8typical 2.5
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 3
  • K. StenlundDid his job
    Center
    13:10
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.9
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.2typical 6.8
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won6 of 11typical 54%
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 1
  • A. LeeDid his job
    Left wing
    12:59
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.21typical 0.15
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.0typical 2.6
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 3
  • M. CarconeDid his job
    Left wing
    12:43
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–1.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 4
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.1typical 2.6
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 3
  • J. McBainDid his job
    Center
    11:14
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 3
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.33typical 0.10
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • D. ButMixed night
    Left wing
    10:26
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–1.0
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 2
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.12typical 0.09
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.4typical 2.8
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: 47 ✓, 8 ≈, 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.

  • K. VejmelkaDid his job
    Goalie
    58:40
    Shots
    21
    Saves
    18
    Sv%
    .857
    xGA
    3.4
    GSAx
    +0.4
    Dangerous
    7/9
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.4typical +0.4
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance7 of 9typically saves 6 of 9
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance11 of 12typically saves 11 of 12
  • I. ShesterkinBig night

    28 saves on 30 shots, +1.5 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    59:58
    Shots
    30
    Saves
    28
    Sv%
    .933
    xGA
    3.5
    GSAx
    +1.5
    Dangerous
    5/6
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.5typical +0.7
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance5 of 6typically saves 4 of 6
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance23 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: Utah Mammoth · New York Rangers