Real data. Everything on this page is computed from actual games.
Last Changeworking title
Numbers from
Hits and takeaways
final

FLA2

Florida Panthers

LAK1

Los Angeles Kings

Tuesday, October 6

Final · Crypto.com Arena

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 (42% for Florida), and Florida came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−4 points42%
Back-to-back0 points42%
Our chance for Florida the morning of the game42%
Tonight's lineup+3 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known45%

Recent chances: how much better each team’s chances have been than their opponents’ lately, with the latest games counting most. Back-to-back: playing for the second night in a row. Tonight’s lineup: whether the players who dressed were stronger or weaker than the team’s usual lineup. Only earlier games went into it, and the preview hinted at it in words without showing the number.

We had this close to even (58% for Los Angeles), and it went Florida’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+4 points58%
Back-to-back0 points58%
Our chance for Los Angeles the morning of the game58%
Tonight's lineup−3 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known55%

Recent chances: how much better each team’s chances have been than their opponents’ lately, with the latest games counting most. Back-to-back: playing for the second night in a row. Tonight’s lineup: whether the players who dressed were stronger or weaker than the team’s usual lineup. 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

    Best against best

    The Kings are 7th in the league for shot volume (60.3 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5); the Panthers are 2nd at keeping shots away. We think the Panthers win this one.

    The call The Panthers keep the Kings under the league-average 56.9 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Held up

    On 5-on-5 shot attempts, Los Angeles had 41.6 per 60. The league average is 56.9 per 60, and they came in at 60.3 per 60.

    60.3 per 60
    Coming in
    41.6 per 60
    In this game
    56.9 per 60
    League average

  2. Before the game

    Bruisers against finesse

    On physicality, Florida ranks 1st in the league and Los Angeles ranks 27th. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Panthers hit more than the Kings in the close stretches of the game.

    Held up

    On hit score in close games (arena-adjusted, 100 is league average), Florida had hit score 190 and Los Angeles hit score 77. Coming in, Florida was at hit score 144 and Los Angeles at hit score 88.

    Called it, and then some. Florida’s hit score in the close stretches of the game was 190, against their usual 144 (100 is league average, adjusted for the arena’s scorer). A team strays this far about once every 10 games.

    FLA hit score 144 · LAK hit score 88
    Coming in
    FLA hit score 190 · LAK hit score 77
    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: 85 held up, 11 partly, 63 didn’t happen, out of 159 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.

Florida earned this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Florida wins 62.

62%
Florida: 53 wins, plus half of the 19 ties
38%
Los Angeles: 28 wins, plus half of the 19 ties

Florida had 45 chances worth 2.6 expected goals. Los Angeles had 32 chances worth 1.9 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.

FloridaLos Angeles
Goals21
Shots on goal3020
Expected goals2.61.9
Shot attempts at 5-on-54428
Power plays0 of 50 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: E. Haula +0.8, G. Forsling +0.7 and L. Eller +0.7.

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
  • S. JonesDid his job

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 9, so it counts for more.

    Defense
    25:33
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.7typical 7.1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.2typical 5.6
  • M. TkachukOff night
    Left wing
    21:25
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play10.4typical 7.8
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.2typical 2.4
  • G. ForslingDid his job
    Defense
    21:22
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.2typical 6.5
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.6typical 2.4
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.9typical 2.3
  • S. ReinhartDid his job
    Center
    21:01
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.2
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play9.1typical 7.2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill12.3typical 5.5
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.1typical 2.2
  • S. BennettMixed night
    Center
    19:29
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play8.2typical 7.3
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.01typical 0.12
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 3
  • A. LundellOff night
    Center
    18:40
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.2
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.8typical 6.8
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.5typical 6.3
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won5 of 13typical 55%
Show 12 more Florida playersHide the other Florida players
  • D. KulikovDid his job
    Defense
    18:23
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.6typical 6.9
  • C. VerhaegheDid his job
    Center
    18:10
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.4
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.2typical 7.2
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.2typical 2.5
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-56typical 3
  • N. MikkolaMixed night
    Defense
    18:10
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.1
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ≈Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.1typical 5.4
  • B. TkachukMixed night
    Left wing
    17:12
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play9.1typical 7.3
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.4typical 2.8
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won4 of 8typical 58%
  • E. LuostarinenDid his job
    Center
    15:43
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.1
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots3typical 1
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.8typical 2.2
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • U. BalinskisMixed night
    Defense
    14:13
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 1
  • L. EllerOff night
    Center
    12:56
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.1
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won5 of 12typical 51%
  • R. GudasDid his job
    Defense
    12:08
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.7typical 6.0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 2
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots3typical 1
  • S. VilmanisDid his job
    Left wing
    11:49
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 3
  • B. MarchandDid his job
    Left wing
    9:36
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.1
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 7.2
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.6typical 2.5
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 2
  • G. HathawayDid his job
    Right wing
    7:52
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.0
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    5
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.4typical 6.1
    • –Hitting Better than mostToo little time to judge
    • –Blocking shots Better than mostToo little time to judge
  • B. ImamaDid his job
    Left wing
    6:18
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.0
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓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: 35 ✓, 5 ≈, 33 ✕.

In net

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

  • J. MarkstromDid his job
    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    20
    Saves
    19
    Sv%
    .950
    xGA
    1.9
    GSAx
    +0.9
    Dangerous
    1/1
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.9typical -0.1
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance18 of 19typically saves 18 of 19
  • D. KuemperDid his job
    Goalie
    57:56
    Shots
    30
    Saves
    28
    Sv%
    .933
    xGA
    2.6
    GSAx
    +0.6
    Dangerous
    3/3
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.6typical +0.0
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance3 of 3typically saves 2 of 3
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance25 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: Florida Panthers · Los Angeles Kings