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

NSH4

Nashville Predators

TOR5

Toronto Maple Leafs

Tuesday, October 6

Final in overtime · Scotiabank Arena

The short version

What happened

The Maple Leafs come back from three down

Steven Stamkos opened the scoring midway through the first. Five different Maple Leafs scored. The Predators led by three, but the Maple Leafs came all the way back. Auston Matthews won it in overtime.

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

What it means

  • The previewOne of the preview’s two calls held.
  • RecordThe Maple Leafs are now 2-2-0.

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 (56% for Nashville), and it went Toronto’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+10 points56%
Who's been playing0 points56%
Back-to-back0 points56%
Our chance for Nashville 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.

We had this close to even (44% for Toronto), and Toronto came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−10 points44%
Who's been playing0 points44%
Back-to-back0 points44%
Our chance for Toronto 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.

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

    Shots should fly both ways

    Nashville plays some of the league’s fastest games, and so does Toronto. We think this one runs hotter than either team’s usual.

    The call The game runs at more than 84.4 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, faster than either team’s usual.

    Pace (shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams): Nashville 4th (84.4), Toronto 5th (84.4)

    Didn’t happen

    The game ran at 81.8 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined, against the faster team’s usual 84.4 and a league average of 82.0.

    84.4 per 60
    Coming in
    81.8 per 60
    In this game
    82.0 per 60
    League average

  2. Before the game

    The Predators kill penalties far better than the Maple Leafs

    The Predators are around the middle of the league for the penalty kill, at the airtight end; the Maple Leafs are one of the league’s worst, at the leaky end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Predators’ penalty kill allows less per 60 than the Maple Leafs’.

    Penalty kill: Nashville 16th, Toronto 31st

    Held up

    On expected goals allowed per 60 on the penalty kill, Nashville had 12.3 per 60 and Toronto 34.3 per 60. Coming in, Nashville was at 7.5 per 60 and Toronto at 8.4 per 60.

    NSH 7.5 per 60 · TOR 8.4 per 60
    Coming in
    NSH 12.3 per 60 · TOR 34.3 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: 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, Nashville wins 57 and Toronto 43, close to a coin flip.

57%
Nashville: 48 wins, plus half of the 17 ties
43%
Toronto: 35 wins, plus half of the 17 ties

Nashville had 35 chances worth 3.7 expected goals. Toronto had 46 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.

NashvilleToronto
Goals45
Shots on goal2537
Expected goals4.14.3
Shot attempts at 5-on-53856
Power plays1 of 11 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: A. Matthews +1.6, F. Forsberg +1.5 and N. Hoglander +1.4.

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
  • R. JosiMixed night
    Defense
    26:33
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.9
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play34.3typical 6.8
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.6typical 6.1
    • ≈Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.05typical 0.06
  • R. O'ReillyOff night
    Center
    23:40
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play34.3typical 7.2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill18.2typical 6.3
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won8 of 16typical 57%
  • B. SkjeiOff night
    Defense
    22:53
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.4–0.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill14.7typical 6.7
  • F. ForsbergMixed night

    2 assists. A good scoresheet, but his usual jobs went quiet.

    Left wing
    21:00
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.8–1.0
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play34.3typical 7.1
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 6
  • N. PerbixOff night
    Defense
    20:49
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    3
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill19.0typical 6.6
  • S. StamkosBig night

    2 goals (one on the power play, one at even strength).

    Center
    19:43
    G
    2
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.6
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play34.3typical 6.9
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.23typical 0.15
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 3
Show 9 more Nashville playersHide the other Nashville players
  • M. BourqueOff night
    Center
    19:15
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.3–0.9
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.2typical 2.1
  • A. KerfootOff night
    Center
    18:50
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.1typical 6.4
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
  • M. WoodDid his job
    Right wing
    16:54
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play34.3typical 6.0
  • J. DruryMixed night
    Center
    15:34
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.2typical 6.9
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.7typical 1.9
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won2 of 8typical 56%
  • A. WilsbyOff night
    Defense
    15:05
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.8
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.8typical 6.3
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.0typical 2.5
  • A. EdstromDid his job
    Center
    14:11
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.4
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    7
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits7typical 4
  • R. ColtonOff night
    Center
    12:52
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 4
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.08typical 0.12
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 4
  • N. HoglanderBig night

    2 goals, 71% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on.

    Left wing
    10:38
    G
    2
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.7–0.7
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • J. AhcanDid his job
      Defense
      7:58
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      +1
      xGF–xGA
      0.7–0.3
      Shots
      0
      Hits
      1
      Blocks
      1
      • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-55.4typical 2.9
    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: 30 ✓, 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.

    • J. SarosOff night
      Goalie
      64:35
      Shots
      37
      Saves
      32
      Sv%
      .865
      xGA
      4.3
      GSAx
      −0.8
      Dangerous
      5/7
      • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.8typical +0.1
      • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance5 of 7typically saves 5 of 7
      • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance27 of 30typically saves 28 of 30
    • A. StolarzMixed night
      Goalie
      64:46
      Shots
      25
      Saves
      21
      Sv%
      .840
      xGA
      4.1
      GSAx
      +0.1
      Dangerous
      1/4
      • ≈Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.1typical +0.5
      • ✕Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance1 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
      • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance20 of 21typically saves 20 of 21

    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: Nashville Predators · Toronto Maple Leafs