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

CAR6

Carolina Hurricanes

MTL4

Montréal Canadiens

Tuesday, October 6

Final · Centre Bell

The short version

What happened

The Hurricanes beat the Canadiens

Taylor Hall scored twice, opening the scoring early in the first. Five different Hurricanes scored. The game was tied three times.

The score was fair. Replay this game’s chances a hundred times and the Hurricanes win about seven in ten. By our Swing measure, Phillip Danault had the best night of anyone, even in a loss. The Canadiens tried a line they hadn’t used before: Florian Xhekaj, Josh Anderson and Jake Evans.

What it means

  • Keep an eye onWhether the Canadiens keep that line together at home against Nashville on Thursday.
  • The previewOne 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 Carolina a 60% chance, and Carolina delivered.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+13 points59%
Who's been playing+1 points60%
Back-to-back0 points60%
Our chance for Carolina the morning of the game60%
Tonight's lineup+2 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known63%

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 Montréal only a 40% chance, and it went the way we feared.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−13 points41%
Who's been playing−1 points40%
Back-to-back0 points40%
Our chance for Montréal the morning of the game40%
Tonight's lineup−2 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known37%

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, 1 held up, 1 partly did, and 1 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    The Hurricanes’ goalie is in for some dangerous shots

    The Canadiens’ shots are some of the most dangerous in the league, and the Hurricanes are the league’s worst at preventing dangerous ones. Look for plenty of good chances.

    The call The Canadiens’ average shot has at least their usual 6.9% chance of going in.

    Montréal 1st for shot quality (a 6.9% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Carolina 32nd for preventing dangerous shots

    Partly

    Montréal’s average shot had a 6.5% chance of going in, against their usual 6.9%.

    6.9% a shot
    Coming in
    6.5% a shot
    In this game
    6.3% a shot
    League average

  2. Before the game

    The Canadiens can’t afford to take penalties

    The Canadiens’ penalty kill is near the bottom of the league, and the Hurricanes’ power play is near the top of the league. Discipline matters more than usual for the Canadiens tonight.

    The call The Hurricanes’ power play creates at least their usual 8.1 expected goals per 60.

    Carolina 6th for power play (8.1 expected goals per 60) · Montréal 26th for penalty kill

    Didn’t happen

    Carolina’s power play created 4.3 expected goals per 60 in 6:11 of 5-on-4 time, against their usual 8.1, and scored 1 goal.

    8.1 per 60
    Coming in
    4.3 per 60
    In this game
    7.5 per 60
    League average

  3. Before the game

    Two of the league’s heaviest-hitting teams

    The Hurricanes and the Canadiens are both among the league’s heaviest hitters, even after adjusting for each arena’s scorer. Keep your head up.

    The call The two teams’ combined hit score reaches their usual 108.

    Hit score (100 is league average): Carolina 109 (7th), Montréal 107 (10th)

    Held up

    The two teams’ combined hit score was 140, against their usual 108 (100 is league average, after adjusting for the arena’s scorer).

    Called it, and then some. Carolina’s hit score in the close stretches of the game was 153, against their usual 109 (100 is league average, adjusted for the arena’s scorer). A team strays this far about once every 10 games.

    hit score 108
    Coming in
    hit score 140
    In this game
    hit score 100
    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.

Carolina earned this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Carolina wins 71.

71%
Carolina: 63 wins, plus half of the 16 ties
29%
Montréal: 21 wins, plus half of the 16 ties

Carolina had 45 chances worth 3.5 expected goals. Montréal had 27 chances worth 2.3 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.

CarolinaMontréal
Goals64
Shots on goal3320
Expected goals3.52.4
Shot attempts at 5-on-55321
Power plays1 of 51 of 4

Swing

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

The biggest swings: P. Danault +1.1, A. Carrier +1.1 and L. Hutson +1.1.

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
  • K. MillerDid his job
    Defense
    22:08
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.8–0.3
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.7typical 6.1
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-57.0typical 2.9
  • J. ChatfieldDid his job
    Defense
    22:02
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.3
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.2typical 6.1
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 3
  • J. SlavinBig night

    2 assists, 73% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on.

    Defense
    21:17
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.2typical 6.0
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.0typical 2.1
  • S. WalkerDid his job
    Defense
    20:20
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.7typical 6.0
    • ✓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 0.04
  • S. AhoBig night

    A power-play goal, 2 assists, 88% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on.

    Center
    19:56
    G
    1
    A
    2
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.1
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play5.2typical 7.3
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.4typical 5.6
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.7typical 3.0
  • L. StankovenDid his job
    Center
    17:42
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.5–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 6.8
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.47typical 0.12
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-57.2typical 3.0
Show 11 more Carolina playersHide the other Carolina players
  • S. GostisbehereDid his job
    Defense
    17:39
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play5.2typical 7.1
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-55.0typical 2.9
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 2
  • A. SvechnikovBig night

    A shorthanded goal, 87% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on. A strong game, even though his usual jobs were quieter.

    Right wing
    17:09
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.1
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play5.4typical 7.3
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.05typical 0.12
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 3
  • J. MartinookMixed night
    Left wing
    16:55
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.3
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.4typical 6.7
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 2
  • J. StaalDid his job
    Center
    16:49
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.4typical 6.6
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won14 of 25typical 54%
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 3
  • N. EhlersMixed night
    Left wing
    15:53
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.7typical 7.0
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.3typical 2.8
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 2
  • J. BlakeMixed night
    Right wing
    15:45
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.9typical 7.1
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-55.8typical 3.0
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.06typical 0.09
  • T. HallBig night

    2 goals, 79% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on.

    Left wing
    13:07
    G
    2
    A
    0
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.2
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 6.8
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-55.0typical 2.9
  • M. JankowskiMixed night

    A goal, 1 assist. A good scoresheet, but his usual jobs went quiet.

    Left wing
    12:37
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.2typical 6.1
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.3typical 2.0
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
  • W. CarrierDid his job
    Left wing
    12:10
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 3
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.0typical 2.0
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.17typical 0.11
  • M. ReillyDid his job
    Defense
    10:22
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 2
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-55.9typical 2.8
  • E. RobinsonBig night

    A goal, 1 assist.

    Left wing
    8:03
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 1
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
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: 44 ✓, 8 ≈, 31 ✕.

In net

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

  • B. BussiOff night
    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    20
    Saves
    16
    Sv%
    .800
    xGA
    2.4
    GSAx
    −1.6
    Dangerous
    2/5
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-1.6typical +0.3
    • ✕Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance2 of 5typically saves 4 of 5
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance14 of 15typically saves 14 of 15
  • J. DobesOff night
    Goalie
    57:13
    Shots
    32
    Saves
    27
    Sv%
    .844
    xGA
    3.5
    GSAx
    −1.5
    Dangerous
    4/5
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-1.5typical +0.8
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance4 of 5typically saves 4 of 5
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance23 of 27typically saves 25 of 27

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: Carolina Hurricanes · Montréal Canadiens