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

STL2

St. Louis Blues

CHI4

Chicago Blackhawks

Tuesday, October 6

Final · United Center

The short version

What happened

The Blackhawks steal one

Mason McTavish opened the scoring late in the first. Four different Blackhawks scored. Cole Smith scored the winner late in the third.

The Blues had the better of the play. Replay the chances a hundred times and the Blues win about seven in ten. By our Swing measure, Connor McMichael had the best night of anyone, even in a loss. The Blues tried a line they hadn’t used before: McMichael, Jonatan Berggren and McTavish, and it had a hand in both of their goals.

What it means

  • SnappedThe Blackhawks won for the first time in four games.
  • Keep an eye onWhether the Blues keep that line together at home against San Jose on Thursday.
  • 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 St. Louis a 61% chance, but Chicago had other ideas.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+12 points58%
Who's been playing+2 points61%
Back-to-back0 points61%
Our chance for St. Louis the morning of the game61%
Tonight's lineup−2 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known59%

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 Chicago a 39% chance, and Chicago proved us wrong.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−12 points42%
Who's been playing−2 points39%
Back-to-back0 points39%
Our chance for Chicago the morning of the game39%
Tonight's lineup+2 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known41%

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

    On shot quality, St. Louis is one of the league’s best and Chicago is near the bottom of the league. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Blues’ shots are more dangerous on average than the Blackhawks’.

    Shot quality: St. Louis 4th, Chicago 24th

    Held up

    On how dangerous the average shot was, St. Louis had 6.0% a shot and Chicago 4.0% a shot. Coming in, St. Louis was at 6.7% a shot and Chicago at 6.1% a shot.

    Called it, and then some. Chicago’s shots at 5-on-5 were less dangerous than usual: a 4.0% chance of scoring on the average shot, against their usual 6.1% (league average 6.3%). A team strays this far about once every 35 games.

    STL 6.7% a shot · CHI 6.1% a shot
    Coming in
    STL 6.0% a shot · CHI 4.0% a shot
    In this game

  2. Before the game

    The Blues hit; the Blackhawks mostly don’t

    The Blues are around the middle of the league for physicality, at the bruising end; the Blackhawks are one of the league’s worst, at the finesse end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Blues hit more than the Blackhawks in the close stretches of the game.

    Physicality: St. Louis 16th, Chicago 31st

    Held up

    On hit score in close games (arena-adjusted, 100 is league average), St. Louis had hit score 132 and Chicago hit score 82. Coming in, St. Louis was at hit score 100 and Chicago at hit score 76.

    Called it, and then some. St. Louis’s hit score in the close stretches of the game was 132, against their usual 100 (100 is league average, adjusted for the arena’s scorer). A team strays this far about once every 6 games.

    STL hit score 100 · CHI hit score 76
    Coming in
    STL hit score 132 · CHI hit score 82
    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.

St. Louis usually wins this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, St. Louis wins 70. The goals went the other way.

70%
St. Louis: 61 wins, plus half of the 18 ties
30%
Chicago: 21 wins, plus half of the 18 ties

St. Louis had 42 chances worth 2.9 expected goals. Chicago had 29 chances worth 1.8 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.

St. LouisChicago
Goals24
Shots on goal2721
Expected goals2.91.9
Shot attempts at 5-on-55031
Power plays0 of 21 of 2

Swing

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

The biggest swings: C. McMichael +0.9, F. Nazar +0.8 and B. Carlo +0.6.

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
  • C. FowlerOff night
    Defense
    23:05
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.1
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.3typical 2.3
    • –Power play Relied onToo little time to judge
  • P. BrobergDid his job
    Defense
    22:25
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill16.4typical 6.6
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.0typical 2.3
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.16typical 0.05
  • R. ThomasOff night
    Center
    20:31
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.1
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.9typical 6.3
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.8typical 6.7
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.1typical 2.6
  • C. ParaykoDid his job
    Defense
    20:11
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill16.4typical 6.7
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 2
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.8typical 2.2
  • J. SnuggerudMixed night
    Right wing
    18:58
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.2
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.9typical 6.5
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 5
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.04typical 0.14
  • A. JiricekDid his job
    Defense
    18:12
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.12typical 0.04
Show 10 more St. Louis playersHide the other St. Louis players
  • B. CarloDid his job
    Defense
    17:58
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.6
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 1
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • C. McMichaelBig night

    A goal, 1 assist, 74% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on.

    Left wing
    17:53
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.3
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.5
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.2typical 2.5
    • –Power play Relied onToo little time to judge
  • P. BuchnevichOff night
    Left wing
    17:43
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.6typical 6.8
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.2typical 2.4
    • –Power play Relied onToo little time to judge
  • M. McTavishDid his job
    Center
    17:20
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 4
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.28typical 0.15
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.6typical 2.8
  • D. HollowayMixed night
    Left wing
    16:03
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    5
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.9typical 6.1
    • ≈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-51.9typical 2.2
  • J. NeighboursDid his job
    Left wing
    15:15
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    6
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.9typical 5.9
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits6typical 3
  • T. LindsteinOff night
    Defense
    14:49
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.03typical 0.04
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.2typical 2.5
  • P. SuterDid his job
    Center
    13:18
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill20.3typical 5.9
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.2typical 2.2
    • –Faceoffs Relied onToo little time to judge
  • D. DvorskyOff night
    Right wing
    10:50
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won5 of 12typical 45%
    • –Power play Relied onToo little time to judge
  • R. JohnstonDid his job
    Left wing
    7:15
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 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: 30 ✓, 2 ≈, 26 ✕.

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. HoferMixed night
    Goalie
    58:14
    Shots
    19
    Saves
    17
    Sv%
    .895
    xGA
    1.9
    GSAx
    −0.1
    Dangerous
    1/2
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.1typical +0.5
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance16 of 17typically saves 16 of 17
  • S. KnightDid his job
    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    27
    Saves
    25
    Sv%
    .926
    xGA
    2.9
    GSAx
    +0.9
    Dangerous
    6/7
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.9typical +0.1
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance6 of 7typically saves 5 of 7
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance19 of 20typically saves 19 of 20

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: St. Louis Blues · Chicago Blackhawks