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

PIT3

Pittsburgh Penguins

WSH5

Washington Capitals

Wednesday, October 7

Final · Capital One 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 (54% for Pittsburgh), and it went Washington’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+8 points54%
Back-to-back0 points54%
Our chance for Pittsburgh the morning of the game54%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known54%

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 (46% for Washington), and Washington came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−8 points46%
Back-to-back0 points46%
Our chance for Washington the morning of the game46%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known46%

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 4 calls the preview made, 3 held up, 1 partly did, and 0 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    The Penguins should get some good looks

    The Penguins make their shots count (5th in the league: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot), and the Capitals are 23rd at preventing dangerous shots. Expect the Penguins to get some real chances.

    The call The Penguins’ average shot has at least their usual 6.7% chance of going in.

    Held up

    Pittsburgh’s average shot had an 8.9% chance of going in, against their usual 6.7%.

    Called it, and then some. Pittsburgh’s shots at 5-on-5 were more dangerous than usual: an 8.9% chance of scoring on the average shot, against their usual 6.7% (league average 6.3%). A team strays this far about once every 20 games.

    6.7% a shot
    Coming in
    8.9% a shot
    In this game
    6.3% a shot
    League average

  2. Before the game

    Expect the Penguins to fire from everywhere

    The Penguins shoot a lot (60.2 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5, 8th in the league), and the Capitals are 24th at keeping shots down. Look for a big shot total.

    The call The Penguins take at least their usual 60.2 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Partly

    Pittsburgh took 59.0 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5 (adjusted for score and venue), against their usual 60.2.

    60.2 per 60
    Coming in
    59.0 per 60
    In this game
    56.2 per 60
    League average

  3. Before the game

    Nobody’s sitting back in this one

    Pittsburgh plays some of the league’s fastest games (6th for pace: 84.2 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined), and so does Washington (9th). We think this one runs hotter than either team’s usual.

    The call The game runs at more than 84.2 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, faster than either team’s usual.

    Held up

    The game ran at 88.7 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined, against the faster team’s usual 84.2 and a league average of 81.8.

    84.2 per 60
    Coming in
    88.7 per 60
    In this game
    81.8 per 60
    League average

  4. Before the game

    Airtight against leaky on the kill

    On penalty kill, Pittsburgh ranks 7th in the league and Washington ranks 26th. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Penguins’ penalty kill allows less per 60 than the Capitals’.

    Held up

    On expected goals allowed per 60 on the penalty kill, Pittsburgh had 8.3 per 60 and Washington 9.4 per 60. Coming in, Pittsburgh was at 6.9 per 60 and Washington at 8.1 per 60.

    PIT 6.9 per 60 · WSH 8.1 per 60
    Coming in
    PIT 8.3 per 60 · WSH 9.4 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: 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.

Too close to call on chances

Played out 100 times with these chances, Pittsburgh wins 53 and Washington 47, close to a coin flip.

53%
Pittsburgh: 45 wins, plus half of the 15 ties
47%
Washington: 39 wins, plus half of the 15 ties

Pittsburgh had 41 chances worth 4.2 expected goals. Washington had 44 chances worth 4.0 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.

PittsburghWashington
Goals35
Shots on goal3027
Expected goals4.24.0
Shot attempts at 5-on-54547
Power plays0 of 31 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: P. Dubois +1.8, T. Novak +1.7 and T. Wilson +1.6.

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
  • E. KarlssonDid his job
    Defense
    24:44
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–1.4
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play11.9typical 7.2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.4typical 6.1
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 3
  • B. KindelMixed night
    Center
    19:36
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play11.9typical 6.0
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.08typical 0.11
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.0typical 2.6
  • R. RakellMixed night

    No points, and 74% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on, though he still did his usual jobs.

    Right wing
    19:22
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–1.4
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play12.2typical 7.5
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.14typical 0.12
  • B. RustMixed night
    Right wing
    19:09
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.8
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    3
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.0typical 7.2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.4typical 6.0
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots3typical 1
  • S. CrosbyRough night

    No points, and 76% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Center
    19:07
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −4
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–1.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play12.6typical 7.3
    • ≈Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won10 of 19typical 55%
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.6typical 2.6
  • S. GirardDid his job
    Defense
    19:00
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.8
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.06typical 0.05
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-54.2typical 2.8
Show 10 more Pittsburgh playersHide the other Pittsburgh players
  • D. CarlileOff night
    Defense
    18:04
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–1.1
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    3
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill16.8typical 6.1
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.04
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 3
  • K. KorczakDid his job
    Defense
    17:23
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.7typical 2.0
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots3typical 1
  • E. MalkinDid his job
    Center
    17:22
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.3–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.9typical 7.3
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-56.5typical 2.7
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.15typical 0.10
  • K. LetangDid his job
    Defense
    17:16
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    1.5–0.7
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 6.2
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 2
  • T. van RiemsdykMixed night
    Defense
    16:24
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill22.5typical 6.2
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.7typical 2.3
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • E. ChinakhovDid his job
    Right wing
    15:29
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.3–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-58typical 3
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.41typical 0.11
  • T. NovakBig night

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 5, 81% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on, on top of doing his usual jobs.

    Center
    15:17
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.2
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-55.6typical 2.8
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.60typical 0.09
  • V. KoivunenDid his job
    Right wing
    14:08
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.3typical 2.3
  • C. DewarOff night
    Center
    11:11
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.2typical 5.9
    • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 2
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 1
  • B. LizotteMixed night
    Center
    10:53
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill21.2typical 5.8
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.1typical 2.3
    • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won1 of 11typical 49%
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: 51 ✓, 6 ≈, 28 ✕.

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.

  • A. SilovsOff night
    Goalie
    56:04
    Shots
    27
    Saves
    22
    Sv%
    .815
    xGA
    4.0
    GSAx
    −1.0
    Dangerous
    5/7
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-1.0typical +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% chance17 of 20typically saves 19 of 20
  • L. ThompsonDid his job
    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    30
    Saves
    27
    Sv%
    .900
    xGA
    4.2
    GSAx
    +1.2
    Dangerous
    6/7
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.2typical +1.0
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance6 of 7typically saves 5 of 7
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance21 of 23typically saves 22 of 23

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: Pittsburgh Penguins · Washington Capitals