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

UTA5

Utah Mammoth

NJD3

New Jersey Devils

Tuesday, October 6

Final · Prudential Center

The short version

What happened

The Mammoth beat the Devils

Clayton Keller opened the scoring 1:57 in. Five different Mammoth scored. Twice the Devils answered a Mammoth lead. Lawson Crouse scored the winner late in the second.

The chances were close to even, so this one could have gone either way. By our Swing measure, Nick Schmaltz had the best night of anyone. The Devils tried a line they hadn’t used before: Amadeus Lombardi, Cody Glass and Jesper Boqvist.

What it means

  • Keep an eye onWhether the Devils keep that line together at home against Vancouver on Saturday.
  • The previewBoth of the preview’s calls held.

Our pre-game read

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

We gave Utah a 37% chance, and Utah proved us wrong.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−1 points45%
Who's been playing−8 points37%
Back-to-back0 points37%
Our chance for Utah the morning of the game37%
Tonight's lineup+1 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known38%

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 New Jersey a 63% chance, but Utah had other ideas.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+1 points55%
Who's been playing+8 points63%
Back-to-back0 points63%
Our chance for New Jersey the morning of the game63%
Tonight's lineup−1 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known62%

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

    The matchup inside the matchup

    The Devils are one of the league’s best for shot volume, and the Mammoth are one of the league’s best at keeping shots away. Our lean: the Devils’ shot volume wins out.

    The call The Devils take more than the league-average 56.5 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5 against the Mammoth.

    New Jersey 3rd for shot volume (65.0 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5) · Utah 4th for keeping shots away

    Held up

    On 5-on-5 shot attempts, New Jersey had 56.6 per 60. The league average is 56.5 per 60, and they came in at 65.0 per 60.

    65.0 per 60
    Coming in
    56.6 per 60
    In this game
    56.5 per 60
    League average

  2. Before the game

    Depth against star power

    On depth, Utah is the league’s best and New Jersey is one of the league’s worst. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Mammoth spread their forward ice time deeper down the lineup than the Devils.

    Depth: Utah 1st, New Jersey 31st

    Held up

    On bottom-six share of forward ice time, Utah had 47% and New Jersey 42%. Coming in, Utah was at 44% and New Jersey at 40%.

    Called it, and then some. Utah’s bottom-six forwards played 47% of the forwards’ 5-on-5 time, against their usual 44% and a league average of 42%. A team strays this far about once every 8 games.

    UTA 44% · NJD 40%
    Coming in
    UTA 47% · NJD 42%
    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.

Utah earned this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Utah wins 68.

68%
Utah: 60 wins, plus half of the 15 ties
32%
New Jersey: 24 wins, plus half of the 15 ties

Utah had 42 chances worth 4.0 expected goals. New Jersey had 44 chances worth 2.9 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.

UtahNew Jersey
Goals53
Shots on goal3133
Expected goals4.12.9
Shot attempts at 5-on-54245
Power plays2 of 41 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: N. Schmaltz +1.7, L. Cooley +1.0 and C. Keller +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
  • N. SchmidtDid his job
    Defense
    23:27
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.6
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ≈Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.2typical 6.2
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.3typical 2.6
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.8typical 2.2
  • M. WeegarBig night

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 19, on top of doing his usual jobs.

    Defense
    20:17
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.3–0.9
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    6
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.2typical 6.5
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots6typical 2
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
  • N. SchmaltzBig night

    A power-play goal, 2 assists, 71% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on.

    Center
    19:47
    G
    1
    A
    2
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–0.5
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play14.1typical 7.0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.2typical 6.3
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-56.0typical 2.6
  • J. MarinoMixed night
    Defense
    19:13
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.5typical 2.5
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.7typical 2.2
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • L. CooleyDid his job
    Center
    18:52
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play14.3typical 7.2
    • ✓Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won8 of 15typical 46%
  • D. SimashevDid his job
    Defense
    18:22
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 1
Show 12 more Utah playersHide the other Utah players
  • C. KellerBig night

    A power-play goal, 1 assist. A strong game, even though his usual jobs were quieter.

    Right wing
    18:18
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.3
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play14.1typical 6.9
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.03typical 0.12
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.0typical 2.7
  • D. GuentherDid his job
    Right wing
    17:31
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.5
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play14.1typical 7.1
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.28typical 0.12
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 3
  • A. PeekeMixed night
    Defense
    17:00
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    5
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.9typical 6.6
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots5typical 1
    • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 1
  • K. StenlundMixed night
    Center
    15:44
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.8typical 6.8
    • ≈Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won8 of 15typical 54%
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 1
  • L. CrouseDid his job
    Left wing
    15:31
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.9typical 6.4
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.41typical 0.11
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
  • M. SergachevBig night

    3 assists.

    Defense
    15:04
    G
    0
    A
    3
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play11.6typical 7.1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.7typical 6.6
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 1
  • V. TrocheckDid his job
    Center
    14:44
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.8typical 7.4
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won13 of 17typical 56%
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 2
  • J. McBainMixed night
    Center
    13:12
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.4typical 6.8
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 4
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.04typical 0.10
  • B. HaytonDid his job
    Center
    12:37
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-54.5typical 2.6
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 2
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.13typical 0.09
  • D. ButOff night
    Left wing
    10:56
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.10
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 2
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.2typical 2.8
  • M. CarconeDid his job
    Left wing
    10:50
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.2
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 3
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.1typical 2.7
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.14typical 0.10
  • A. LeeDid his job
    Left wing
    10:49
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.13typical 0.12
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-55.3typical 2.6
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 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: 49 ✓, 15 ≈, 27 ✕.

In net

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

  • K. VejmelkaOff night
    Goalie
    59:46
    Shots
    33
    Saves
    30
    Sv%
    .909
    xGA
    2.9
    GSAx
    −0.1
    Dangerous
    4/4
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.1typical +0.4
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance4 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance26 of 29typically saves 27 of 29
  • J. AllenOff night
    Goalie
    57:29
    Shots
    31
    Saves
    26
    Sv%
    .839
    xGA
    4.1
    GSAx
    −0.9
    Dangerous
    5/7
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.9typical +0.3
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance5 of 7typically saves 5 of 7
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance21 of 24typically saves 23 of 24

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: Utah Mammoth · New Jersey Devils