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

CGY1

Calgary Flames

SEA6

Seattle Kraken

Sunday, October 4

Final · Climate Pledge Arena

The short version

What happened

The Kraken roll past the Flames

The Kraken had this one put away early. Berkly Catton opened the scoring early in the first. Mackie Samoskevich added two goals. It was 3-0 before the first period was half over. Five different Kraken scored.

The chances were closer than the score. The Kraken tried a line they hadn’t used before: Jared McCann, Matty Beniers and Samoskevich, and it had a hand in both of their goals.

What it means

  • SlumpThe Flames haven’t won in three.
  • Keep an eye onWhether the Kraken keep that line together at home against Vegas on Tuesday.
  • The previewTwo of the preview’s three calls held.

Our pre-game read

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

We gave Calgary only a 36% chance, and it went the way we feared.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−3 points43%
Who's been playing−7 points36%
Back-to-back0 points36%
Our chance for Calgary the morning of the game36%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known36%

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 Seattle a 64% chance, and Seattle delivered.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+3 points57%
Who's been playing+7 points64%
Back-to-back0 points64%
Our chance for Seattle the morning of the game64%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known64%

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 3 calls the preview made, 2 held up, 0 partly did, and 1 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    Wolf isn’t cursed against the Kraken

    Wolf has been shaky against the Kraken since 2023-24, well below his usual. It looks like a pattern, but across three seasons a goalie’s record against one team told us nothing about the next meeting. Expect the usual Wolf.

    The call If Wolf starts, his save percentage lands closer to his usual .906 than to his .855 against the Kraken.

    6 starts against Seattle: .855 save percentage · .906 against everyone else

    Didn’t happen

    D. Wolf stopped 21 of 27 shots (.778), against his usual .906 and his .855 against this team before tonight.

    .906
    Coming in
    .778
    In this game

  2. Before the game

    The Flames should pile up the shots

    Seattle has been giving up shots all season, and the Flames rarely pass one up.

    The call The Flames take at least their usual 62.5 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Calgary 5th for shot volume (62.5 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5) · Seattle 30th for shot suppression

    Held up

    Calgary took 73.3 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5 (adjusted for score and venue), against their usual 62.5.

    62.5 per 60
    Coming in
    73.3 per 60
    In this game
    56.8 per 60
    League average

  3. Before the game

    The Kraken can’t afford to cough it up

    The Flames turn stolen pucks into chances, and the Kraken are near the bottom of the league at avoiding breakdowns. A sloppy pass or two could cost the Kraken.

    The call The Flames get at least their usual 7.6% of their 5-on-5 chances right after winning the puck.

    Calgary 8th for chances off turnovers (7.6% of their chances come right after winning the puck) · Seattle 26th for avoiding breakdowns

    Held up

    23.0% of Calgary’s 5-on-5 chances came right after winning the puck, against their usual 7.6%.

    7.6%
    Coming in
    23.0%
    In this game
    7.3%
    League average

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, Calgary wins 45 and Seattle 55, close to a coin flip.

45%
Calgary: 35 wins, plus half of the 18 ties
55%
Seattle: 46 wins, plus half of the 18 ties

Calgary had 51 chances worth 2.4 expected goals. Seattle had 44 chances worth 2.7 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.

CalgarySeattle
Goals16
Shots on goal3327
Expected goals2.42.7
Shot attempts at 5-on-57753
Power plays1 of 20 of 0

Swing

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

The biggest swings: B. Montour +1.3, B. Catton +1.2 and R. Evans +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
  • M. CoronatoDid his job
    Right wing
    22:02
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.7
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.2typical 6.6
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-510typical 5
  • S. NemecMixed night
    Defense
    21:14
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–1.2
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-58typical 4
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.02typical 0.06
  • Z. ParekhDid his job
    Defense
    20:59
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.7
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.4typical 6.4
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-56typical 4
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.08typical 0.06
  • Y. KuznetsovDid his job
    Defense
    19:32
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–1.1
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 1
  • Z. WhitecloudRough night

    No points, and 70% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    18:59
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −4
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–1.1
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 2
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.4typical 2.3
  • M. FrostMixed night
    Center
    17:51
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.8
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.3typical 6.9
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won6 of 14typical 58%
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
Show 8 more Calgary playersHide the other Calgary players
  • J. FarabeeMixed night
    Left wing
    16:51
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.6
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
  • J. MiddletonMixed night
    Defense
    16:47
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 1
  • S. HonzekDid his job
    Left wing
    15:29
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.3typical 2.0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 2
  • M. BacklundOff night
    Center
    15:16
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.8
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-510typical 4
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.0typical 2.4
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won6 of 16typical 51%
  • M. GridinOff night
    Right wing
    14:26
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.3typical 6.8
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 3
  • M. PospisilDid his job
    Center
    13:31
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    8
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits8typical 4
  • M. TsyplakovRough night

    No points, and 71% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Right wing
    12:19
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–1.0
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 2
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.9typical 2.4
  • A. KlapkaMixed night
    Right wing
    11:17
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.8
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 4
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
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: 34 ✓, 6 ≈, 16 ✕.

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. WolfRough night

    21 saves on 27 shots, −3.3 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    27
    Saves
    21
    Sv%
    .778
    xGA
    2.7
    GSAx
    −3.3
    Dangerous
    1/3
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-3.3typical +0.2
    • ✕Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance1 of 3typically saves 2 of 3
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance20 of 24typically saves 22 of 24
  • J. DaccordDid his job
    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    33
    Saves
    32
    Sv%
    .970
    xGA
    2.4
    GSAx
    +1.4
    Dangerous
    0/1
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.4typical +0.5
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance32 of 32typically saves 30 of 32

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 · Seattle Kraken