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

SJS0

San Jose Sharks

DAL5

Dallas Stars

Monday, October 5

Final · American Airlines Center

The short version

What happened

Oettinger shuts out the Sharks

Miro Heiskanen opened the scoring late in the first. Five different Stars scored. Jake Oettinger stopped all 13 shots.

The score was fair. Replay this game’s chances a hundred times and the Stars win nine in ten. By our Swing measure, Jason Robertson had the best night of anyone.

What it means

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

Our pre-game read

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

We gave San Jose only a 38% chance, and it went the way we feared.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−7 points39%
Who's been playing−1 points38%
Back-to-back0 points38%
Our chance for San Jose the morning of the game38%
Tonight's lineup−3 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known35%

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 Dallas a 62% chance, and Dallas delivered.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+7 points61%
Who's been playing+1 points62%
Back-to-back0 points62%
Our chance for Dallas the morning of the game62%
Tonight's lineup+3 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known65%

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

    Special teams lean toward the Stars

    The Sharks’ penalty kill is near the bottom of the league, and the Stars’ power play is one of the league’s best. Discipline matters more than usual for the Sharks tonight.

    The call The Stars’ power play creates at least their usual 8.7 expected goals per 60.

    Dallas 3rd for power play (8.7 expected goals per 60) · San Jose 24th for penalty kill

    Held up

    Dallas’s power play created 10.7 expected goals per 60 in 6:00 of 5-on-4 time, against their usual 8.7, and scored 0 goals.

    8.7 per 60
    Coming in
    10.7 per 60
    In this game
    7.5 per 60
    League average

  2. Before the game

    Expect a grind

    San Jose plays some of the league’s slowest games, and so does Dallas. We think this one is even quieter than either team’s usual.

    The call The game runs at fewer than 75.6 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, slower than either team’s usual.

    Pace (shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams): San Jose 26th (79.5), Dallas 32nd (75.6)

    Held up

    The game ran at 60.1 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined, against the slower team’s usual 75.6 and a league average of 81.9.

    75.6 per 60
    Coming in
    60.1 per 60
    In this game
    81.9 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.

Dallas earned this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Dallas wins 90.

10%
San Jose: 6 wins, plus half of the 8 ties
90%
Dallas: 86 wins, plus half of the 8 ties

San Jose had 20 chances worth 1.5 expected goals. Dallas had 39 chances worth 4.3 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.

San JoseDallas
Goals05
Shots on goal1326
Expected goals1.54.3
Shot attempts at 5-on-52757
Power plays0 of 20 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: J. Robertson +2.1, M. Heiskanen +1.9 and M. Rantanen +1.7.

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
  • D. NurseRough night

    No points, and 90% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    22:16
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–1.7
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    3
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill14.9typical 7.5
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots3typical 2
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 4
  • M. KesselringRough night

    No points, and 92% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    20:50
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–1.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    3
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.01typical 0.05
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.9typical 2.5
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-50.4typical 2.5
  • D. OrlovDid his job
    Defense
    19:19
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.0typical 6.3
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.8typical 2.3
  • L. CagnoniOff night
    Defense
    19:01
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play2.4typical 6.7
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.04
  • J. TroubaOff night
    Defense
    18:50
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.9
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    3
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill13.1typical 7.1
    • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 2
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 3
  • W. SmithMixed night

    No points, and 90% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on, though he still did his usual jobs.

    Center
    18:28
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–1.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play2.6typical 6.4
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 3
Show 11 more San Jose playersHide the other San Jose players
  • A. WennbergRough night

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

    Center
    17:39
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–1.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play2.6typical 6.7
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill11.6typical 7.2
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • S. DickinsonRough night

    No points, and 74% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    16:28
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.9
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.4typical 2.2
  • M. MarchmentRough night

    No points, and 94% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Left wing
    16:12
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–1.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    6
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play2.5typical 6.2
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-50.5typical 2.3
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits6typical 2
  • M. MisaOff night
    Center
    15:22
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.0–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-50.1typical 2.3
    • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won5 of 11typical 46%
  • I. ChernyshovOff night
    Left wing
    15:03
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.0–0.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-50.2typical 2.6
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.03typical 0.12
  • K. SherwoodDid his job
    Left wing
    15:02
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    7
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.5typical 6.9
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.5typical 6.3
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits7typical 7
  • T. DellandreaMixed night
    Center
    14:20
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill21.2typical 6.6
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 1
  • T. ToffoliMixed night
    Center
    14:05
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.6
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.7typical 7.2
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 3
  • B. GoodrowDid his job
    Center
    13:14
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.7typical 6.8
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 2
  • C. GrafOff night
    Right wing
    12:42
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill21.0typical 6.2
  • Z. OstapchukDid his job
    Center
    11:35
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    4
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.2typical 6.5
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots4typical 1
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 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: 41 ✓, 11 ≈, 26 ✕.

In net

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

  • Y. AskarovOff night
    Goalie
    59:49
    Shots
    26
    Saves
    21
    Sv%
    .808
    xGA
    4.3
    GSAx
    −0.7
    Dangerous
    6/9
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.7typical -0.4
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance6 of 9typically saves 6 of 9
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance15 of 17typically saves 16 of 17
  • J. OettingerBig night

    A shutout, 13 saves on 13 shots, +1.5 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    13
    Saves
    13
    Sv%
    1.000
    xGA
    1.5
    GSAx
    +1.5
    Dangerous
    2/2
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.5typical +0.4
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance11 of 11typically saves 10 of 11

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: San Jose Sharks · Dallas Stars