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

WPG3

Winnipeg Jets

PIT2

Pittsburgh Penguins

Monday, October 5

Final · PPG Paints Arena

The short version

What happened

The Jets beat the Penguins

Ben Kindel opened the scoring midway through the second. The game was tied twice. Cole Perfetti scored the winner midway through the third.

The chances were close to even, so this one could have gone either way. By our Swing measure, Alex Iafallo had the best night of anyone.

What it means

  • The previewBoth of the preview’s calls held.
  • RecordThe Jets are now 2-0-1.

Our pre-game read

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

We gave Winnipeg a 35% chance, and Winnipeg proved us wrong.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−5 points41%
Who's been playing+1 points43%
Back-to-back−8 points35%
Our chance for Winnipeg the morning of the game35%
Tonight's lineup−3 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known32%

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 Pittsburgh a 65% chance, but Winnipeg had other ideas.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+5 points59%
Who's been playing−1 points57%
Back-to-back+8 points65%
Our chance for Pittsburgh the morning of the game65%
Tonight's lineup+3 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known68%

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

    Good looks against hopeful ones

    The Penguins are one of the league’s best for shot quality, at the dangerous end; the Jets are one of the league’s worst, at the hopeful end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Penguins’ shots are more dangerous on average than the Jets’.

    Shot quality: Pittsburgh 5th, Winnipeg 29th

    Held up

    On how dangerous the average shot was, Pittsburgh had 7.0% a shot and Winnipeg 6.2% a shot. Coming in, Pittsburgh was at 6.6% a shot and Winnipeg at 5.9% a shot.

    PIT 6.6% a shot · WPG 5.9% a shot
    Coming in
    PIT 7.0% a shot · WPG 6.2% a shot
    In this game

  2. Before the game

    The Penguins get in close; the Jets shoot from distance

    On shots from in close, Pittsburgh is the league’s best and Winnipeg is around the middle of the league. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Penguins take a bigger share of their shots from within 20 feet than the Jets.

    Shots from in close: Pittsburgh 1st, Winnipeg 22nd

    Held up

    On share of 5-on-5 shots from within 20 feet, Pittsburgh had 38% and Winnipeg 23%. Coming in, Pittsburgh was at 34% and Winnipeg at 30%.

    PIT 34% · WPG 30%
    Coming in
    PIT 38% · WPG 23%
    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.

Too close to call on chances

Played out 100 times with these chances, Winnipeg wins 45 and Pittsburgh 55, close to a coin flip.

45%
Winnipeg: 36 wins, plus half of the 18 ties
55%
Pittsburgh: 46 wins, plus half of the 18 ties

Winnipeg had 42 chances worth 2.9 expected goals. Pittsburgh had 46 chances worth 3.1 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.

WinnipegPittsburgh
Goals32
Shots on goal3531
Expected goals2.93.1
Shot attempts at 5-on-55356
Power plays0 of 10 of 2

Swing

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

The biggest swings: A. Iafallo +1.6, D. DeMelo +1.2 and A. Lowry +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
  • J. MorrisseyMixed night
    Defense
    23:50
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–1.0
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.9typical 6.6
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.3typical 2.2
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 4
  • D. DeMeloDid his job
    Defense
    22:24
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.3–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.1typical 6.6
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.4typical 2.4
  • K. ConnorDid his job
    Left wing
    21:59
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–1.4
    Shots
    6
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.6typical 6.9
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-57typical 6
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.31typical 0.20
  • M. ScheifeleDid his job
    Center
    21:18
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–1.2
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.8typical 6.8
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.7typical 2.4
    • ✓Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won14 of 24typical 48%
  • D. SambergMixed night
    Defense
    21:03
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–1.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.9typical 6.8
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.3typical 2.2
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots3typical 2
  • N. PionkRough night

    No points, and 76% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    20:04
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–1.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.9typical 6.4
    • ✓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-54.9typical 2.4
Show 8 more Winnipeg playersHide the other Winnipeg players
  • C. PerfettiDid his job

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 6, so it counts for more.

    Center
    19:59
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–1.4
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.9typical 6.3
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 4
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.6typical 2.2
  • M. FerraroDid his job
    Defense
    16:53
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.7
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.1typical 6.9
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 1
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.9typical 2.1
  • M. BarronMixed night
    Center
    15:55
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    6
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.6typical 6.9
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.1typical 2.3
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 3
  • A. LowryBig night

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 10, on top of doing his usual jobs.

    Center
    15:49
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    5
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.6typical 6.4
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.2typical 2.3
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • G. VilardiDid his job
    Center
    14:21
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.6
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.9typical 6.8
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.2typical 2.4
  • J. St. IvanyMixed night
    Defense
    14:10
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 2
  • A. IafalloBig night

    A goal, 1 assist.

    Left wing
    10:24
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.2
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.6typical 2.3
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • C. KoepkeDid his job
    Left wing
    8:29
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.7typical 6.4
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 2
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 2
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: 43 ✓, 7 ≈, 23 ✕.

In net

Each goalie’s night: the goals he stopped beyond what the shots were worth, and the dangerous and routine saves.

  • C. StevensonDid his job
    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    31
    Saves
    29
    Sv%
    .935
    xGA
    3.1
    GSAx
    +1.1
    Dangerous
    2/3
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.1typical +0.0
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance2 of 3typically saves 2 of 3
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance27 of 28typically saves 26 of 28
  • S. MurashovDid his job
    Goalie
    57:23
    Shots
    35
    Saves
    32
    Sv%
    .914
    xGA
    2.9
    GSAx
    −0.1
    Dangerous
    2/4
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.1typical -0.7
    • ✕Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance2 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance30 of 31typically saves 29 of 31

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: Winnipeg Jets · Pittsburgh Penguins