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

PHI1

Philadelphia Flyers

TBL4

Tampa Bay Lightning

Monday, October 5

Final · Benchmark International Arena

The short version

What happened

The Lightning beat the Flyers

Brayden Point opened the scoring late in the first. Four different Lightning scored.

The score was fair. Replay this game’s chances a hundred times and the Lightning win nine in ten. By our Swing measure, Nikita Kucherov had the best night of anyone. The Flyers tried a line they hadn’t used before: Carl Grundstrom, Noel Acciari and Sean Couturier.

What it means

  • SlumpThe Flyers haven’t won in four.
  • Keep an eye onWhether the Flyers keep that line together in Ottawa on Thursday.
  • 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 Philadelphia only a 39% 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−4 points39%
Back-to-back0 points39%
Our chance for Philadelphia the morning of the game39%
Tonight's lineup−3 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 Tampa Bay a 61% chance, and Tampa Bay delivered.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+3 points57%
Who's been playing+4 points61%
Back-to-back0 points61%
Our chance for Tampa Bay the morning of the game61%
Tonight's lineup+3 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 2 calls the preview made, 1 held up, 0 partly did, and 1 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    Don’t count on Vasilevskiy to stand on his head again

    Since 2023-24, Vasilevskiy has been a wall against the Flyers, well above his usual. Fans love a pattern like this, but we checked three seasons of them and they predicted nothing. Expect the usual Vasilevskiy.

    The call If Vasilevskiy starts, his save percentage lands closer to his usual .910 than to his .944 against the Flyers.

    7 starts against Philadelphia: .944 save percentage · .910 against everyone else

    Didn’t happen

    A. Vasilevskiy stopped 14 of 15 shots (.933), against his usual .910 and his .944 against this team before tonight.

    .910
    Coming in
    .933
    In this game

  2. Before the game

    Expect the Lightning to fire from everywhere

    Philadelphia has been giving up shots all season, and the Lightning rarely pass one up.

    The call The Lightning take at least their usual 60.3 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Tampa Bay 6th for shot volume (60.3 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5) · Philadelphia 28th for shot suppression

    Held up

    Tampa Bay took 77.5 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5 (adjusted for score and venue), against their usual 60.3.

    60.3 per 60
    Coming in
    77.5 per 60
    In this game
    56.4 per 60
    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.

Tampa Bay earned this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Tampa Bay wins 86.

14%
Philadelphia: 9 wins, plus half of the 10 ties
86%
Tampa Bay: 81 wins, plus half of the 10 ties

Philadelphia had 25 chances worth 1.7 expected goals. Tampa Bay had 45 chances worth 4.1 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.

PhiladelphiaTampa Bay
Goals14
Shots on goal1536
Expected goals1.74.1
Shot attempts at 5-on-52656
Power plays0 of 30 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: N. Kucherov +1.3, B. Hagel +0.9 and J. Moser +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
  • T. SanheimRough night

    No points, and 82% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    25:04
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–1.6
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    5
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.8typical 6.5
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.1typical 2.2
  • C. YorkRough night

    No points, and 75% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    23:31
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–1.0
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play2.8typical 7.0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.0typical 6.3
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.8typical 2.1
  • N. SeelerDid his job
    Defense
    19:36
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill12.8typical 6.1
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 2
  • T. KonecnyRough night

    No points, and 82% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Right wing
    19:05
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–1.6
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.0typical 6.6
    • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 3
  • T. FoersterOff night
    Right wing
    18:55
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.6
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play5.7typical 7.1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill10.2typical 6.3
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.4typical 2.1
  • T. ZegrasOff night
    Center
    18:19
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play5.5typical 7.0
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.3typical 2.4
Show 11 more Philadelphia playersHide the other Philadelphia players
  • J. DrysdaleRough night

    No points, and 95% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    18:10
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–1.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play5.5typical 6.9
  • M. MichkovRough night

    No points, and 77% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Right wing
    16:40
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–1.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play5.4typical 7.0
  • S. CouturierMixed night
    Center
    16:35
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.3typical 6.6
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won8 of 11typical 54%
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.7typical 2.2
  • P. MartoneRough night

    No points, and 81% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Right wing
    14:36
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–1.0
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.1typical 6.7
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.9typical 2.3
  • C. DvorakRough night

    No points, and 81% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Center
    14:24
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–1.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won7 of 16typical 55%
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.02typical 0.12
    • –Power play Relied onToo little time to judge
  • O. TippettOff night
    Right wing
    13:58
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.2typical 6.8
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 3
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
  • N. AcciariOff night
    Center
    13:39
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.7typical 6.6
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won5 of 10typical 54%
  • D. BarkeyOff night
    Center
    13:06
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.2typical 7.0
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.2typical 2.0
  • S. BenoitDid his job
    Defense
    11:52
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill15.1typical 7.1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 2
  • N. CatesDid his job
    Left wing
    11:12
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill14.0typical 5.6
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.6typical 2.0
    • ✓Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won7 of 11typical 48%
  • C. GrundstromDid his job
    Right wing
    10:12
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.8typical 2.3
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: 34 ✓, 11 ≈, 32 ✕.

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. VladarDid his job
    Goalie
    57:24
    Shots
    35
    Saves
    32
    Sv%
    .914
    xGA
    4.1
    GSAx
    +1.1
    Dangerous
    4/4
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.1typical +0.5
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance4 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance28 of 31typically saves 29 of 31
  • A. VasilevskiyDid his job
    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    15
    Saves
    14
    Sv%
    .933
    xGA
    1.7
    GSAx
    +0.7
    Dangerous
    0/0
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.7typical +0.5
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance14 of 15typically saves 14 of 15

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: Philadelphia Flyers · Tampa Bay Lightning